The May 2020 By-Election, with a Prediction
Written by Monkey with Poll Input and Advice from Calvin Coolidge
Published 24 May 2020Written by Monkey with Poll Input and Advice from Calvin Coolidge
Note: This will be a living document, I will attempt to make changes and add information as candidates release information up to the election.
Introduction
Yesterday, I released a 24 hour flash poll to gauge where the electorate stood on issues regarding executive reform, and where they stood on the current field of candidates. My poll received 25 responses, which is a decent sample size from active Europeians who have been watching the reform effort, but it is likely that the election will see a larger number of voters, which would obviously impact the numbers presented below. Thank you to everyone who took my poll and provided their insight for me to analyze, as well as thanks to Calvin Coolidge, who took a last minute glance at my questions to save me from any embarrassing grammatical mistakes, and to Verteger and others who assisted me in coming up with a method for me to predict senatorial success.
Candidate Backgrounds
Three newcomers have entered the race, mainly Darkslayer, SkyGreen and Forilian, who both have recently joined the region in the last few months and have quickly gotten involved in a variety of Ministries. Notably, they also have some electoral experience, Darkslayer ran for the last byelection to replace senator Sopo, and came in third place, SkyGreen ran for a seat as well. Forilian ran for the mayor of Arnhelm in the May election, which he placed second in after a runoff.
Some other candidates have entered the race, such as GraVandius, who also ran in the last byelection and narrowly lost the runoff against current senator McEntire. Other candidates who decided to run for a seat include Isaris, Ervald, (who both have senatorial experience) and Verteger. Candidate Ervald also announced that he would not be pursuing running in the general election, which is an interesting statement to make at this point in the race and it’s unclear how that might impact his election chances.
Overall, these candidates together compose a very interesting field, filled with both eager newcomers as well as more experienced legislators, and one that doesn’t quite fit into either camp. All candidates have been recently keeping busy either through their private media outlets, or work within ministries, or even both. With the by-election intending to fill a roughly 30 day term, activity does not seem to be a major concern among the candidates.
Platform and Data Analysis
Next, we will discuss the data and how it compares to the platforms. The intent of the poll was to see what the electorate was ideologically thinking, which will help inform my predictions at the end of who will be elected to fill the two seats.
It looks like my assumption was correct, all of the responses indicated that they were more likely to vote for someone that matched their view.
My first question asked about the executive modernization, which overwhelmingly was voted as a significant issue, with the majority of responses saying that it’s a top priority for them and should be completed as soon as possible.
The data shows that a wide majority support the current senate and think that it should be passed ASAP, while there are a few small dissidents who think the process should be allowed to take longer, or disagree with the current senate’s direction, or just flat out oppose it.
This is clearly reflected in almost all of the candidate’s platforms, in which all of them immediately start off by discussing their views on executive modernization, and spend most, if not all, of their platforms spouting their views on various topics within the overall plans. It’s clear that the priorities of the region match up with the priorities of the hopeful senate candidates. Interestingly, Isaris was the only candidate to openly and clearly go against executive modernization, citing that a new Chief of State election has not been held since the recent change that the senate approved to switch the process from a senate vote to a popular vote. The data also showed that nearly all responses agreed that the candidate’s plans for the executive modernization also played a significant hand in how they would vote. I then assumed that the candidate who had the most overlap with the overall will of the region would have a higher chance of winning, since it’s pretty clear that the electorate is watching the platforms and ideas pretty closely.
The first ideological question polled was regarding the minister nomination requirements, specifically for traditional cabinet positions. The following breaks down the options and where the candidates stand.
Option 1: Keep the hard cap
No candidates supported this option.
Option 2: The soft cap
No candidates supported this option.
Option 3: Blanket increase to 66%
Verteger: Citing a minimal difference between 66% and 75% and arguing against the logistic difficulties of implementing a soft cap
Forilian: Citing that executive bloat is not ‘an issue at all’ and taking advantage of our current activity with more ministry positions
Darkslayer: Citing that this threshold would give the executive more flexibility in forming Ministries while still being accountable to the Senate
SkyGreen: Citing that a lower threshold (actually set at 61.8% instead of 66%) is the ‘golden ratio’ and that there are already other methods of oversight to evaluate performance throughout the term
Option 4: Blanket increase to 75%
Ervald: Citing executive flexibility and a larger impact in smaller senates
GraVandius: Citing the effectiveness of a 75% increase for ‘reducing frivolous nominations’
Option 5: No Change
Isaris: Citing that the executive needs ministerial ‘leeway’ and that it is important to take into account that all work in our region is voluntary
Overall Significance: LOW
Overall, it seems as the field is mostly rather evenly split within a blanket increase, with more candidates leaning towards the lower option rather than the 75%, with the exception of Isaris. Isaris, once again goes against the grain of the rest of the field to oppose any cap whatsoever. Most candidates seem to have a general consensus that a soft cap would be too difficult to implement logistically, and this compromise allows the executive to retain some flexibility while giving the senate a little more power in scrutinizing cabinet picks.
According to the data, it looks like most of the responses pushed for the blanket increase in some sort of way, with roughly ⅓ pushing for 66% and 75% respectively. There was a small percentage of responses who advocated for no change, but this is a major shift from the last poll where a majority of responses actually pushed for no change. I wonder if this is because they have been persuaded by the ongoing discussions, or if perhaps they’re just tired and want to spring for a compromise to solve the current debate.
I then spun off of this question to ask if this limit should be applied to other positions, such as justices, or the World Assembly delegate for example. The options and candidate stances are listed below.
Yes
GraVandius: Citing no reason to have differences in scrutiny and a small chance of senators possibly ‘torpedo’ potential nominees
Verteger: Citing the increased complexity of having different standards for offices and possibly future issues or ‘work-arounds’
Isaris: While Isaris did not specifically choose a stance, they selected that they believe there should be no current change, so I feel that it is safe to assume that they believe that these other appointments should not be affected as well.
No
Ervald: Citing a lower workload and activity needed to maintain these roles, and less of a concern over executive bloat
Darkslayer: Citing that the raise should only apply to ministerial positions
Overall Significance: LOW
Once again, it seems that the candidates are pretty evenly split over this idea. In regards to both of these questions however, it seems that most candidates are open to compromise and have not solidly locked in a position. With the stances so similar as well, it is unlikely that they will have an immense factor over one’s choice of who to vote for, and they are more likely to be potential tiebreakers in the voter’s mind if anything.
The electorate looks pretty much split over this data, with 40% saying that the new change shouldn’t apply, and the remaining 60% saying it should. To me, it seems like this isn’t an issue the electorate is very concerned about, or perhaps they really are evenly split over the idea. If I were a candidate, I would probably pick one stance and stick to it, rather than changing views to try and pander to the voters.
I then asked if the Vice President should be required to serve in a Ministry. Currently, our Second Minister and Vice Chief of State are required to serve as Ministers because of the traditional reputation that these positions hold for a smaller workload. Here are where the candidates stand.
Yes
Ervald: Citing the duality of the Vice President, particularly emphasizing the role they play as an advisor and how serving in a cabinet might ‘empower’ that side
No
GraVandius: Citing the increased strain for the Vice President to run a Ministry as well as manage half of the cabinet
Verteger: Citing an increase in flexibility for the Vice President to ‘coordinate broader efforts’ and possibly weakening both a Ministry and the Vice President due to the increased burden
Forilian: Citing that binding the Vice President to one Ministry is unnecessary and should oversee and coordinate with other Ministries instead
SkyGreen: Citing the belief that the decision should be left up to the President, with a possibility of the Vice President being Minister if they wish to
Isaris: Citing that while it may be ‘highly beneficial’ for a Vice President to take on a Minister role as well, it should be up to the executive
Overall significance: HIGH
The pool tends to lean towards not extending the ministerial requirement to the vice president. This seems to be a larger issue that may well factor into election odds, as the two options are more black and white, rather than being able to compromise somewhere in the middle. This could be a dealbreaker for some voters who are inclined to vote ideologically.
This question was evenly more split than the last. Again, there could be an assumption that could be made here in regards to maybe this isn’t an issue the electorate feels very strong about, or it’s too evenly divided to really formulate a stance based off of this poll. With a nearly 50/50 split, it looks like it’ll be up to the senators in the senate to make a decision regarding this issue. However, this is an issue that is less compromisable than the other issues regarding the cap, so if it’s important to you, I would scrutinize candidates and their stances carefully before voting.
My last question focused on the future of radio, a ministry that has recently been mentioned as a possibility for it to become independent, or a non-executive nominated position. The four options and stances are listed below.
Independent + legislated
No candidates supported this option.
Subministry under Communications
No candidates supported this option.
Keep how radio is currently operated
Forilian: Citing that radio is ‘currently on the right path’
Independent via culture, not legislation
SkyGreen: Citing that radio should ‘either stay like it is, or become an independent agency’, but it should be handled after executive modernization
Overall Significance: LOW
I initially thought that this would be a big issue, but it does not appear to be, given the lack of it being addressed in the platforms. It seems that the senate recently reached some sort of consensus on the issue, so it may be less significant than I anticipated. I would imagine that if a candidate had a strong feeling on radio or ministerial independence and wanted to opt in to that discussion, it could have significant bearing on their election odds.
I presented a few options here, and the most selected options were keeping radio the same, which won a majority, and radio should be something that is changed culturally, which won slightly over a quarter of the vote. Regardless, it looks like the majority of the responses are generally in favor that the senate shouldn’t take any action on this issue and it should be left to future executives to decide how they want their cabinet structured.
Another issue that was brought up by GraVandius, was how the transition was going to be facilitated, as the Chief of State and the First Minister have staggered elections. He proposed shortening the First Minister term, and opening a Presidential election at the conclusion of the First Minister and Chief of State term. This was agreed upon by Ervald. Since this is an issue that was recently brought up, and not considered heavily within the senate as of yet, I do not think this will be an issue that will have a major impact on voters, unless another candidate proposes a radically different idea.
Overall Significance: LOW
We will then move on to evaluating these candidate’s likelihoods for success given the newly minted Monkey’s Electoral Index, with the help of some input from #Eurochat. The scale will be as follows:
- Front runners: Large swaths of support, leading the pack, highly likely to get elected or see a strong showing in the election
- Contenders: Still have shots at being elected, could have a strong showing on voting day, could play a role in siphoning votes, forcing runoffs, etc
- Long-shots: Don’t have much apparent support going into the election, would be surprising if elected, possibility to do well if there is a turnaround in candidate platforms, visibilities, GOTV strategies
The candidates will be ranked from most likely to least likely to be elected. I will provide a short reasoning for why I assigned them the score, and then reveal the score itself. To all the candidates, please keep in mind that this is a preliminary prediction made by me, and it could still be anyone’s race come voting day. But first, here’s some data that helped me make my predictions.
This is a pretty substantial swing from the previous by-election, where a newcomer candidate won a higher amount of votes. It looks like it’s now shifted to almost half of the responses wanting a more experienced senator in the seat. Perhaps the voters are tired of dragging on the reform discussion and are less willing to place their trust in a newer member?
This data is interesting, because it seems to directly contradict the previous graph. No responses picked that they primarily choose their candidates based off of past experience, which is expected, but different than what I was expecting based on the previous data. It looks like the most important factors at play are what their beliefs are and how they align with yours, how detailed and well-written their platform is, and possibly a candidate that will bring a new ideas or a different direction to the senate.
I believe the candidate most likely to be elected is GraVandius. GraVandius has a long history of senatorial experience, even serving as speaker for many terms. GraVandius is also a powerful voice in reform and modernization, recently publishing many articles regarding aspects of modernization in his private media outlet, the ERI. GraVandius was also close to winning a seat in the last by-election, and this opening could be the chance he needs to score a seat. I am naming GraVandius a frontrunner, I will be highly surprised if he does not do extremely well in the election. Barring any large changes, I would expect that a seat at this point in time is almost guaranteed to him.
I believe the next likely candidate to win will be Ervald. Ervald has been a significant voice in the Grand Hall modernization thread, and has had previous legislative experience as well, even though he has not served for a couple of years. Ervald has a strong and detailed platform, and voters may be interested in electing a ‘newer’ face to the senate, while ensuring that it is someone with the knowledge and experience to meaningfully contribute to the discussion. I am naming Ervald a contender, I believe that he is certainly a strong candidate but will need to keep up the momentum as voting day approaches. I certainly would not be surprised if Ervald won a seat.
I believe the next likely candidate to win is Mr. Verteger. Mr. Verteger has a strong discord presence, and his recent articles regarding burnout and teamwork released through his private media outlet, the Ombudsman, have been met very positively. Verteger also has a strong platform, but there may be critics of whether he will be able to deliver his aspirations or maybe his lack of seriousness regarding many issues. However, Verteger’s platform shows that he has clearly thought about the issues, and a shorter term may be the opportunity he needs to prove himself as an experienced Europeian politician. For these reasons, I am naming Verteger a contender. In a smaller pool of candidates, I might say that he has a higher chance of winning, but with the current pool, there may be concerns and criticisms over his performance in the role, and that may seriously impact his electability. I believe that he is capable of mounting a strong challenge, and have a very strong performance in the election.
I am giving Isaris the position of the next likely candidate. At this point, I believe that the legislative experience a candidate holds is particularly important in this election, and Isaris’ past experience as a senator is what gives them the boost over the newcomer field. However, Isaris is ranked the least likely out of all the Europeian ‘staple’ candidates because of their controversial stances. It’s hard for me to see why the electorate might choose to vote for a candidate who is frankly opposed to reform at this time, and might be looking to significantly alter or delay the senate in their current path. However, Isaris does present a platform that takes stances on these issues, and because of that, I think compromise is something Isaris will be willing to undergo. However, I think Isaris’ open opposition will be a significant negative factor, so I will be assigning Isaris into the long-shot catagory.
To me, the next likely is Darkslayer. Darkslayer ran in the last senatorial election, and I think this gives him a slight edge over Forilian due to name recognition. If this were the last election, I may have ranked him higher, however at this point in reform, it seems that many senators and citizens alike are tired of being tied up by the smaller details, and they may opt to go for a more experienced legislator to wrap up the discussions and get some sort of bill passed. They may be less likely to vote for a newer member that may have less to contribute, or less familiar with the senate landscape. I am assigning Darkslayer as another long-shot, I believe that he is capable of having a strong performance in the election, and presents a solid platform with detailed ideas, but unfortunately is unlikely to win over the bigger candidates such as GraVandius or Ervald that have significant legislative experience.
Next, we have Forilian. Forilian encounters many of the problems above in regards to selecting a newer candidate, however also suffers from a lack of name recognition, as he opted to run in the Arnhelm mayoral election rather than the Senatorial by-election. Again, the electorate may be more willing to spring for a more experienced legislator this time around than a newer one. Forilian’s platform is detailed and organized, and goes to include a short introductory section where he details why he is qualified to be a senator before launching into campaign details. I assign Forilian into the long-shot group, at this stage it’s unclear who might be willing to take the chance and spend one of their votes on a newer member, but I believe he may have the potential to alter the race in some way.
Last but not least, we have SkyGreen. Similar to Darkslayer and Forilian, SkyGreen suffers from simply being a ‘newcomer’ this time around, when the electorate may be looking for a more experienced legislator to take the reins and wrap up the reform discussion. SkyGreen presents a short and succinct platform that covers all the essential points of the reform discussion. Unfortunately, I ranked him below Forilian because of past legislative experience. SkyGreen also ran in the last by election, where he was criticized for having a platform that was perhaps too ‘open’, when the electorate was looking for someone with more solid ideas. SkyGreen has gotten involved in the executive department as well, working on writing IFVs as well as being named Deputy Minister for the MoWAA. Frankly, the last two choices were very hard to make, but ultimately, Forilian’s campaign in the May Arnhelm Mayoral election ultimately provided the tiniest boost to propel him to a higher spot. While the role of Arnhelm positions may be controversial in how they actually affect one’s resume, I believe simply the visibility of someone running for a position in a legislative-related field could give them the slight boost to put them over another ‘newcomer’. I name SkyGreen a long-shot.
Summary:
Candidates (ranked from most likely to win a seat to least likely): GraVandius, Ervald, Verteger, Isaris, Darkslayer, Forilian, SkyGreen
I also created a profile of the ‘ideal candidate’, based off of the poll results. Keep in mind that this may not be entirely accurate, as it does not take into account that voters that support one stances support other stances equally. For example, voters that like the color ‘red’, may have a preference for the shape ‘square’, rather than moving to the next question and picking equally.
In general, voters want the winner to be:
- Someone experienced with previous senatorial experience (44%)
- Someone that shares their beliefs about the remerge (48%)
- Someone who supports the current senate’s work and will build upon it, while ensuring that it gets passed in a timely manner (64%)
- Someone who supports some kind of blanket raise in confirmation (68% combined)
- Someone who thinks that the raise should be applied to all executive appointments (60%)
- Someone who believes the Vice President should not be required to serve in a ministry (52%)
- Someone who believes that radio should not be altered (56%)
I also asked a separate question during this poll, regarding who they would vote for at this point in time. These numbers were used in my prediction, although my predictions were not fully based off of those numbers alone. These numbers will be released after the election, in which I will publish a follow-up to compare how my poll numbers and predictions fared compared to voting day. Again, I want to emphasize that my predictions do not match up with the votes in the number poll. I will say that for one or more of the candidates listed above, the raw numbers specifically contradict my predictions, so don’t lose hope!
Food for Thought
What do you think is important to voters this time around? Are there any predictions you agree with, disagree with? Who do you think has a strong shot at those seats? Do you think there’s hope for other candidates running? How accurate do you think this data will be when it comes down to who’s winning the seats?
Last edited:
