The EBC posted a poll in the Grand Hall on October 13th, and closed it roughly forty-eight hours later on October 15th. Here are the results and analysis.
Did you vote in the most recent election?
Did you vote in the previous Presidential election?
These results show that an overwhelming majority of our respondents have voted in the most recent Presidential elections, adding some validity to our results.
What do you usually look for in a Presidential candidate?
These results emphasize what people look for in a proper candidate, with most saying experience and platform. Clearly, a candidate that wants to win the Presidency must have strong showings in both of the categories to win. Let’s not forget about personality, however, which was the next highest ranked in the list, as people also feel this is something that a candidate should have. This seems to reinforce the general logic behind our elections, the candidate that has the most experience, the best platform, and a good attitude, is the most likely to get elected.
If experience is important to you, what sort of experience do you look for?
The three largest totals in this question were Foreign Affairs, Interior and Military. Why is this? Foreign Affairs makes sense, since Europeia does not just hunker down and isolate itself from other regions, we continually engage with our allies in important ways, (such as the Independence Convention, for instance) and the President plays a large part in these affairs, and prior knowledge would allow for more effective action in this area.
As for Military, people are most likely wanting a candidate with prior experience here because the President does hold the position of Commander-in-Chief, over the ERN, and prior knowledge is almost required before having this type of position, which is what voters seem to be expressing here.
As for Interior, a logical framework for recruiting and retention of newcomers is, after all, what keeps the region afloat. Our voters seem to be saying that prior knowledge here, helping with expanding retention and integration, is very important.
How do you balance experience from inside the region versus experience in other regions?
What is most important to you when considering a Presidential candidate?
A sampling of the comments we received:
What they've actually done for the region. I don't like when people are quiet for months and suddenly pop back up and act like royalty.
Belief that they can do the job and do it well. This means their experience matters, their people skills (in terms of getting people to work towards what their end goal for the term), their ideas for the coming term, etc.
That they're not Zenny.
There are a lot of hugely important things, but a well established pattern of past behaviour that indicates an intelligent and hard worker is most important.
These comments seem to reinforce the results shown earlier, a candidate should have a strong platform, experience, and a good attitude. We also received a few comments directed at people, showing that our politics are, as we've pointed out, heavily based on personality. We are not endorsing any particular point of view by displaying such comments, simply showing a summary of the responses.
What do you look for in a candidate's running mate?
A sampling of the comments we received:
The VP is a "heartbeat" away from the Presidency, so someone that I think could do a credible job as President, if necessary. I usually won't vote FOR someone because of their VP, but a bad VP choice could sway my vote against someone.
Someone to balance the ticket. If the President is inexperienced and has domestic strengths, I want a Vice-President that is experienced and has a foreign affairs background, etc.
I look for a workhorse and someone who won't suck up to the President. Someone who is dedicated to saying something should be changed, is active, and a workhorse.
Nothing, VP rarely matters.
I generally don't pay much attention to the running mate.
Here, the respondents seem split between thinking that the running mate should balance the ticket, and not caring about it. Clearly, the running mates seem to be in the back of people's minds when they are casting their ballot.
Generally speaking, would you rather have:
It seems our respondents are split on what sort of election they would prefer, but the slight edge to the more competitive race could be a response to the lackluster election we just had, perhaps hinting to more dynamic elections in the future, if the populace acts on their beliefs.
How do you feel about candidates releasing their Minister nominations before getting elected?
As a follow-up to the last question: why do you feel that way?
A sampling of the comments we received:
It's always good to know who will be implementing the plans in place. You could have a fantastic plan but nobody to run it. Whilst the Senate decides this and discusses, it is after the election, and we may want to consider the voters getting a more idea of their candidates term before voting for them.
A candidate's Cabinet is more important than their agenda. A great agenda is useless if the Cabinet does not have the skills to implement it. A great Cabinet with a poor agenda on the other hand will still perform at least well, with more Ministers driving their departments towards their own vision.
Because I don't care. On one hand releasing them lets us gage the strength of the likely cabinet and on the other a lot of the Campaign will end up being about the Cabinet and not the Candidate or their ideas.
I feel like the revelation of ministerial nominations before the election is finalized shows weakness on the part of the candidate. To me it signifies that the candidate isn't sure that their own ticket is strong enough to win the election, so they're trying to say "Look at all these awesome people who'll have my back,"
I don't see the benefit. In every term I've been active, at least one Minister (per term) has resigned or been replaced due to inactivity. I'm voting for President/VP - not for whomever they picked to be their Minister of Funny Faces. If I were to vote based off of one particular Minister in their slate (for example), and that Minister were to go inactive a month later, I would be stuck with whatever President I elected ... and perhaps I'd regret my choice and wish I voted for the other candidate. They may not have had as great of a choice for Minister of Funny Faces, but they might be more effective in the leadership role, overall.
Releasing one's Cabinet turns the debate away from the candidate's platform and experience.
It seems those in favor of releasing want more to debate on, while those opposed want to focus the debate on the candidates, not the Ministers. I suppose, depending on what you feel is important to the election is how you decide your opinion on this issue.
Why did you not run for President?
In the past month or so we have seen a decline in political activity with some heavy-hitters of Europeian politics not having enough time for the Presidency from a combination of positions already held in Europeia and/or real life concerns. The second strongest reason was that the respondents didn't feel qualified, but this does show there are some fish in the sea waiting to grow before heading out for their first Presidential run.
Why do you think more people did not stand in this election?
A sampling of the comments we received:
I think mala and mouse got over hyped and people started seeing them as unbeatable, even though they weren't. People didn't want to run against someone that they couldn't beat. Additionally, people have been extremely passive politically lately, which likely played a part.
A lot of our more experienced members have been tied up with real life issues the past few weeks, and several others who would have been good presidential candidates were either discouraged by Senatorial losses, or were recently elected to the senate and preferred to focus on that rather than attempt to win another election so soon after being elected. As for our newer members, I don't think a lot of them had really any idea what to expect from this election, and I feel like certain events during the standing period confused some people, so they weren't entirely sure what was happening.
I believe we are at a lowering of political interest currently, probably due to a lot of heavy-political people (CSP, OO, etc) falling inactive and it being fall and classes starting (or work
)
I think we have periods where it feels among many that it is a certain person's or people's "time"; when things align just right for someone to have an amazing term.
Because running against Malashaan and Mousebumples is something only stupid people would do. They were going to win no matter what happened (excepting an act of god).
Mala and Mouse were unbeatable. They scared off any competition. They will rule as long as they please. This is above Anumian levels of cult.
This seems to summarize our results from the above question, with some saying there was not a very experienced pool to draw from, others talking about the supremacy of the Malashaan/Mousebumples ticket, and some saying that this region is, overall, seeing a slump in political activity, and this election is just a reflection of that.
Do you think you may run for President at some point in the future?
These results are encouraging for those who are worried about a slump, or a lack of competition in elections. It seems that sometime in the (hopefully near) future, we will have more candidates than we know what to do with.
Why do you think Abstain got so many votes?
A sampling of the comments we received:
People were pissed that they had absolutely no real choice this election. We haven't had a competitive or close election in Europeia for well over a year, and its incredibly boring. Not sure why people even both to vote, as it doesn't make a difference in the region anymore.
I don't feel like Malashaan had the strongest ticket to run on. His ticket basically came down to "we'll take what's broke and try to fix it, and while we're at it we'll try to fix the things that aren't broken as well. Oh, and we'll build some new stuff so that we can fix that too." Honestly I had to think harder about voting between Mal's "Innovation ticket" and abstain that I would have liked to.
Mala supports things that have strong opposition, such as the GAP, and proposed some very ambitious projects, which likely made people a little concerned for how much he could actually complete.
I was one of them? Honestly, I think people thought it was "funny/amusing" ... until they realized that if Mal/Mouse didn't win, we'd be starting nominations over again.
People will naturally push against a singular candidate on the ballot.
I believe some people didn't think Mala had a really thought out platform in some areas such as Navy and FA, and believe it would be beneficial for someone else to run.
The majority of people seem to be saying that this is just a by-product of the one candidate race, but others go a step farther, saying that this is a direct result of perceived flaws in Malashaan's candidacy. Which reason is true, however, is not particularly certain.
What suggestions do you have to improve the standing period for future elections?
A sampling of the comments we received:
More (that is, more than the zero we have had of late) speeches and enthusiasm being generated from the beginning. Of late the Supreme Chancellors have had rather unimpressive opening speeches; I feel like this is not encouraging people to run, especially newcomers. Our Supreme Chancellors are in an excellent position to motivate and encourage people to participate in our Republic, and should utilise that more.
Run. Don't think you are going to win? Run anyway.
The mechanism itself is good. There is little to nothing that needs changing about our electoral law.
This question was not mandatory, so we did not get too many responses. However, those who did seem to be encouraging people to run, to encourage more competition, and all are saying this is a problem with our populace, not our laws, which, depending on how you look it at, can be either encouraging, or troublesome. Can we motivate our people to eventually run for President? We'll see.
Any comments on Europeia in general?
A sampling of the comments we received:
We are facing a huge problem right now and it's not political at all. Right now there are some extremely maladaptive attitudes that have become all too common.
This term needs to increase activity to combat a major problem in this election: disinterest. I think MinInn is a good step towards solving this, and the expansion to the roles of MinComm and Culture are also smart moves, as they are led by our two most active and productive members of government (outside of M&M, of course).
More people involved, not same people doing same thing for years.
Another question that was not mandatory, we see the same thing in all of the responses, that people want to see a more active political scene. It seems the populace is divided on whether or not the current path we are on can solve this conundrum or not, but the fact that we realize the problem is a good first step.
In conclusion, this poll seems to be showing us that we have an inactive region right now, politically, and that this election represents the point we have come to. It seems that the pressure is on this administration to counter this lethargy in the coming term, or risk defeat in the next election, at the hands of Abstain, since it seems nobody else is willing to run.
Raw Data
Did you vote in the most recent election?
What do you usually look for in a Presidential candidate?
If experience is important to you, what sort of experience do you look for?
As for Military, people are most likely wanting a candidate with prior experience here because the President does hold the position of Commander-in-Chief, over the ERN, and prior knowledge is almost required before having this type of position, which is what voters seem to be expressing here.
As for Interior, a logical framework for recruiting and retention of newcomers is, after all, what keeps the region afloat. Our voters seem to be saying that prior knowledge here, helping with expanding retention and integration, is very important.
How do you balance experience from inside the region versus experience in other regions?
I only take Europeian experience into consideration3
I mostly look at Europeian experience, but foreign experience does have some sway6
I consider both equal3
I mostly consider foreign experience, but Europeian experience does have some sway0
I only take foreign experience into consideration0
I don't care about how experienced a given candidate is1
Voters in this poll mostly take Europeian experience into account, with the majority also considering foreign experience, as a minor factor. Our voters seem to be suggesting that with a mixture of foreign and Europeian experience, comes an interesting blend of knowledge in positions and NS, which useful to have as President.I mostly look at Europeian experience, but foreign experience does have some sway6
I consider both equal3
I mostly consider foreign experience, but Europeian experience does have some sway0
I only take foreign experience into consideration0
I don't care about how experienced a given candidate is1
What is most important to you when considering a Presidential candidate?
A sampling of the comments we received:
What they've actually done for the region. I don't like when people are quiet for months and suddenly pop back up and act like royalty.
Belief that they can do the job and do it well. This means their experience matters, their people skills (in terms of getting people to work towards what their end goal for the term), their ideas for the coming term, etc.
That they're not Zenny.
There are a lot of hugely important things, but a well established pattern of past behaviour that indicates an intelligent and hard worker is most important.
These comments seem to reinforce the results shown earlier, a candidate should have a strong platform, experience, and a good attitude. We also received a few comments directed at people, showing that our politics are, as we've pointed out, heavily based on personality. We are not endorsing any particular point of view by displaying such comments, simply showing a summary of the responses.
What do you look for in a candidate's running mate?
A sampling of the comments we received:
The VP is a "heartbeat" away from the Presidency, so someone that I think could do a credible job as President, if necessary. I usually won't vote FOR someone because of their VP, but a bad VP choice could sway my vote against someone.
Someone to balance the ticket. If the President is inexperienced and has domestic strengths, I want a Vice-President that is experienced and has a foreign affairs background, etc.
I look for a workhorse and someone who won't suck up to the President. Someone who is dedicated to saying something should be changed, is active, and a workhorse.
Nothing, VP rarely matters.
I generally don't pay much attention to the running mate.
Here, the respondents seem split between thinking that the running mate should balance the ticket, and not caring about it. Clearly, the running mates seem to be in the back of people's minds when they are casting their ballot.
Generally speaking, would you rather have:
Two (or more) strong candidates run against each other, resulting in a weaker overall ticket being elected, but a more contested election7
Two strong candidates team up to run together (as pres/vp) against a weaker challenger (or No Confidence), resulting in a stronger overall ticket being elected, but a less contested election.6
Two strong candidates team up to run together (as pres/vp) against a weaker challenger (or No Confidence), resulting in a stronger overall ticket being elected, but a less contested election.6
It seems our respondents are split on what sort of election they would prefer, but the slight edge to the more competitive race could be a response to the lackluster election we just had, perhaps hinting to more dynamic elections in the future, if the populace acts on their beliefs.
How do you feel about candidates releasing their Minister nominations before getting elected?
Minister nominations should be released.4
Minister nominations should not be revealed.7
I have no real preference or opinion.2
This is an issue that came up during the EBC's election panel, and it was something we thought we would explore here. It seems the majority of respondents do not want candidates to release their Minister nominations before getting elected.Minister nominations should not be revealed.7
I have no real preference or opinion.2
As a follow-up to the last question: why do you feel that way?
A sampling of the comments we received:
It's always good to know who will be implementing the plans in place. You could have a fantastic plan but nobody to run it. Whilst the Senate decides this and discusses, it is after the election, and we may want to consider the voters getting a more idea of their candidates term before voting for them.
A candidate's Cabinet is more important than their agenda. A great agenda is useless if the Cabinet does not have the skills to implement it. A great Cabinet with a poor agenda on the other hand will still perform at least well, with more Ministers driving their departments towards their own vision.
Because I don't care. On one hand releasing them lets us gage the strength of the likely cabinet and on the other a lot of the Campaign will end up being about the Cabinet and not the Candidate or their ideas.
I feel like the revelation of ministerial nominations before the election is finalized shows weakness on the part of the candidate. To me it signifies that the candidate isn't sure that their own ticket is strong enough to win the election, so they're trying to say "Look at all these awesome people who'll have my back,"
I don't see the benefit. In every term I've been active, at least one Minister (per term) has resigned or been replaced due to inactivity. I'm voting for President/VP - not for whomever they picked to be their Minister of Funny Faces. If I were to vote based off of one particular Minister in their slate (for example), and that Minister were to go inactive a month later, I would be stuck with whatever President I elected ... and perhaps I'd regret my choice and wish I voted for the other candidate. They may not have had as great of a choice for Minister of Funny Faces, but they might be more effective in the leadership role, overall.
Releasing one's Cabinet turns the debate away from the candidate's platform and experience.
It seems those in favor of releasing want more to debate on, while those opposed want to focus the debate on the candidates, not the Ministers. I suppose, depending on what you feel is important to the election is how you decide your opinion on this issue.
Why did you not run for President?
Why do you think more people did not stand in this election?
A sampling of the comments we received:
I think mala and mouse got over hyped and people started seeing them as unbeatable, even though they weren't. People didn't want to run against someone that they couldn't beat. Additionally, people have been extremely passive politically lately, which likely played a part.
A lot of our more experienced members have been tied up with real life issues the past few weeks, and several others who would have been good presidential candidates were either discouraged by Senatorial losses, or were recently elected to the senate and preferred to focus on that rather than attempt to win another election so soon after being elected. As for our newer members, I don't think a lot of them had really any idea what to expect from this election, and I feel like certain events during the standing period confused some people, so they weren't entirely sure what was happening.
I believe we are at a lowering of political interest currently, probably due to a lot of heavy-political people (CSP, OO, etc) falling inactive and it being fall and classes starting (or work
)I think we have periods where it feels among many that it is a certain person's or people's "time"; when things align just right for someone to have an amazing term.
Because running against Malashaan and Mousebumples is something only stupid people would do. They were going to win no matter what happened (excepting an act of god).
Mala and Mouse were unbeatable. They scared off any competition. They will rule as long as they please. This is above Anumian levels of cult.
This seems to summarize our results from the above question, with some saying there was not a very experienced pool to draw from, others talking about the supremacy of the Malashaan/Mousebumples ticket, and some saying that this region is, overall, seeing a slump in political activity, and this election is just a reflection of that.
Do you think you may run for President at some point in the future?
Why do you think Abstain got so many votes?
A sampling of the comments we received:
People were pissed that they had absolutely no real choice this election. We haven't had a competitive or close election in Europeia for well over a year, and its incredibly boring. Not sure why people even both to vote, as it doesn't make a difference in the region anymore.
I don't feel like Malashaan had the strongest ticket to run on. His ticket basically came down to "we'll take what's broke and try to fix it, and while we're at it we'll try to fix the things that aren't broken as well. Oh, and we'll build some new stuff so that we can fix that too." Honestly I had to think harder about voting between Mal's "Innovation ticket" and abstain that I would have liked to.
Mala supports things that have strong opposition, such as the GAP, and proposed some very ambitious projects, which likely made people a little concerned for how much he could actually complete.
I was one of them? Honestly, I think people thought it was "funny/amusing" ... until they realized that if Mal/Mouse didn't win, we'd be starting nominations over again.
People will naturally push against a singular candidate on the ballot.
I believe some people didn't think Mala had a really thought out platform in some areas such as Navy and FA, and believe it would be beneficial for someone else to run.
The majority of people seem to be saying that this is just a by-product of the one candidate race, but others go a step farther, saying that this is a direct result of perceived flaws in Malashaan's candidacy. Which reason is true, however, is not particularly certain.
What suggestions do you have to improve the standing period for future elections?
A sampling of the comments we received:
More (that is, more than the zero we have had of late) speeches and enthusiasm being generated from the beginning. Of late the Supreme Chancellors have had rather unimpressive opening speeches; I feel like this is not encouraging people to run, especially newcomers. Our Supreme Chancellors are in an excellent position to motivate and encourage people to participate in our Republic, and should utilise that more.
Run. Don't think you are going to win? Run anyway.
The mechanism itself is good. There is little to nothing that needs changing about our electoral law.
This question was not mandatory, so we did not get too many responses. However, those who did seem to be encouraging people to run, to encourage more competition, and all are saying this is a problem with our populace, not our laws, which, depending on how you look it at, can be either encouraging, or troublesome. Can we motivate our people to eventually run for President? We'll see.
Any comments on Europeia in general?
A sampling of the comments we received:
We are facing a huge problem right now and it's not political at all. Right now there are some extremely maladaptive attitudes that have become all too common.
This term needs to increase activity to combat a major problem in this election: disinterest. I think MinInn is a good step towards solving this, and the expansion to the roles of MinComm and Culture are also smart moves, as they are led by our two most active and productive members of government (outside of M&M, of course).
More people involved, not same people doing same thing for years.
Another question that was not mandatory, we see the same thing in all of the responses, that people want to see a more active political scene. It seems the populace is divided on whether or not the current path we are on can solve this conundrum or not, but the fact that we realize the problem is a good first step.
In conclusion, this poll seems to be showing us that we have an inactive region right now, politically, and that this election represents the point we have come to. It seems that the pressure is on this administration to counter this lethargy in the coming term, or risk defeat in the next election, at the hands of Abstain, since it seems nobody else is willing to run.
Raw Data
