ppatpat news

TL;DR: This election is a referendum on three competing visions for SimDem’s future: Dylan’s populist revivalism, Muggy-Thyme’s nostalgic-libertine legacy, and DemocracyForYou’s bureaucratic pragmatism. Each ticket leverages a distinct electoral psychology: rebellion, return, and responsibility.

I. The Interregnum of Realignment

The once-dominant Liberty Coalition, a broad-tent alliance encompassing the United Socialist League (USL), The Centre, the New People’s Party (NPP), and the idiosyncratic Lemon Party, had managed to sustain executive dominance through the 136th and 137th cycles, with Muggy and Thyme at the helm. Yet that dominance eroded by the 138th, when voters rejected the coalition, exhausted by a perceived blend of overfamiliarity and dysfunction. Since then, SimDemocracy has entered a period of transition. The incumbents of the 139th Presidency - mypenjustbroke and ppatpat - provided a technocratic, stabilizing stewardship. Yet, their decision not to seek reelection leaves the stage dramatically open. What follows is not merely a typical electoral cycle, but a symbolic contest over SimDem’s political identity: Should it return to known powers? Embrace insurgent novelty? Or professionalize governance through institutional renewal?

The three leading tickets - Dylan/Creative, Muggy/Thyme, and DemocracyForYou/Rocky - each represent distinct responses to that central question. Each candidate pair projects not just policies, but theories of legitimacy and models of governance. And each emerges from very different psychological, ideological, and procedural zones of SimDemocracy’s civic ecosystem.

II. The Candidates

1. Dylan & Creative Dylan enters as the self-proclaimed outsider, energized by a rhetoric of renewal and disillusionment. Vis speech is a classic case of what political theorist Michael Walzer might call “critique from within the community”. Vi acknowledges that SimDem voters may see him as irrelevant or inexperienced but urges them to see that very disillusionment as proof that the current system is stale. Vi's platform is defined by an eclectic mix of populism, digital federalism, and state-capital hybridization. Vi proposes the creation of a Minecraft Assembly, elected using TEA (Threshold Equal Approval) voting. It’s the virtual equivalent of municipalism, an attempt to empower communities defined by platform and play. Complementing this are more traditional left-leaning economic reforms. Dylan's advocacy for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), to be gradually privatized, hints at a market-socialist transitional framework, where the state incubates industrial capacity before exposing it to competition. However, Dylan's Achilles’ heel is glaring—vi's prior stint as Speaker of the Senate, which ended in a -33% approval rating. In constitutional terms, the Speaker is tasked with essential vote scheduling and institutional coherence. Dylan's perceived failure in that role will fuel skepticism about his readiness for the presidency. The contrast between vis vision and vis past record creates a psychological dissonance. Can a leader whose past in-office governance was widely condemned credibly promise a future of efficient, responsive leadership? 2. Muggy & Thyme If Dylan is the insurgent, Muggy is the prodigal monarch. With Thyme, the former Vice President, rejoining the ticket, the Muggy campaign leans into restorationist nostalgia. They are not denying the failures of the past Liberty administration, instead, they are owning them with irony, affection, and rhetorical flamboyance. Muggy’s campaign speech oscillates between meme culture and raw emotionality: lines like “fixing the fridge in the break room” and “I won’t declare myself incapacitated when I sleep” poke fun at institutional memory while signaling a real desire for functional government.

Muggy consistently emphasizes “stability” and “expansion”, but in a paradoxically chaotic tone. This isn’t contradiction, it’s calculated brandcraft. Stability here doesn’t mean stoicism, it means constant executive presence. Muggy insists their greatest legacy from past presidencies was activity, the consistent performance of leadership, visibility, and reaction. On expansion, Muggy walks a tightrope. They endorse the goal of growing SimDem, yet they critique the erratic plans offered by certain Senators. Their solution? A veto-forward presidency, threatening to reject “bad execution” and declaring “BILL GRAVEYARD LET’S GO.” This shows a fundamental distrust of the legislative apparatus, reinforcing an executive-first philosophy. It’s a soft caesarism: rule through aesthetic charisma and discretionary filtration.

Their soft underbelly? They must overcome the very legacy they rely on. Liberty fell in 138 because it ceased to represent a compelling future. The danger here is that Muggy’s reappearance might be seen as the reanimation of a tired aristocracy. Their use of irony, while effective for engagement, might also weaken the perceived seriousness of their governing intent, especially when placed next to Democracyforyou's sober realism.

3. DemocracyForYou & Rocky If Dylan is the young rebel and Muggy the whimsical monarch, DemocracyForYou enters as the rationalist reformer. With the backing of Bill “Rocky” Moor, a behind-the-scenes coalition-builder in the NPP, this ticket aims to restore public trust through procedure, policy, and precision. DfYou’s message is not sexy, but it is sincere, analytic, and infrastructure-focused.

This ticket is unwaveringly clear. Security is paramount. Their plan includes a Special Terrorism Prosecutor and an IO Oversight Official, both designed to introduce layers of accountability and intelligence coordination. These proposals reflect the logic of bureaucratic checks rather than charismatic leadership. The IO Official, in particular, suggests a nuanced reading of SimDem’s tendency toward law enforcement overreach. It’s statecraft as damage control.

On expansion, DfYou plans to double the Department of Expansion’s outreach arm, launch cross-platform campaigns, and generally professionalize SimDem’s public-facing apparatus. This is the only campaign taking outreach as a domain of strategic statecraft, not just community hype. Here, we see echoes of classic Weberian bureaucratic theory: governance through specialization, routine, and expertise. Notably, Democracyforyou resists theatricality. Their campaign literature is concise, technocratic, and focused on results. That seriousness may be a liability among meme-rich demographics, but it's a powerful asset to voters who want institutional coherence. And with Rocky’s reputation for quiet coalition maintenance, the ticket embodies function over flair.

This campaign however, does have one big risk. Emotional flatness. Voters often respond more to vibes than to virtues. Democracyforyou lacks the memetic charm of Dylan or the nostalgic charisma of Muggy. Their campaign rests on the hope that voters are tired enough of chaos to seek managerial competence. In electoral psychology terms, they are appealing to high-agency rational actors.

III. Structural suitability

Let's take a look at how each candidate would shape up in the top office. Dylan, with his -33% legacy and outsider posture, will require either a Senate insurgency or overwhelming popular mandate to govern effectively. His platform’s constitutional feasibility is sound, but practical execution hinges on coalition-building, a weak suit. Muggy, with their prior incumbency, knows the system and can govern effectively if re-popularized. However, their veto-centric promises and revivalist approach risk returning to executive-legislative gridlock, a destabilizing factor. Democracyforyou, most structurally aligned, proposes reforms that dovetail neatly with SimDem’s legal architecture. Their proposals would not require legislative acrobatics or culture wars, just votes, appointments, and quiet consensus.

IV. A Three-Path Election

This election is not just about policy, it is more-so about how governance itself should be imagined.

Dylan offers neo-populist decentralization, a SimDem built from the bottom up via servers, games, and economic experimentation.

Muggy offers restorative charisma, a return to performative governance blended with real executive muscle.

Democracyforyou offers state realism, a vision of SimDem as a working institution, professional, secure, expandable.

With the 136th Senatorial Election concluded, a new Senate has been formed, bringing together veterans and newcomers alike. This election marks a critical turning point in SimDemocracy’s governance, as it is the last Senate race conducted under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. Moving forward, a new voting system will reshape electoral strategy, making this Senate term a transitional period between SimDem’s past and future.

Below, we analyze each winning senator, the strategic positioning of their parties, and the major takeaways from this election.

The Winning Candidates: Who They Are and What They Bring

1. Deputy Speaker Fefur (/u/fedeReddit11) – The Institutional Stabilizer (Lemon Party)

What Their Victory Means: As an incumbent with an established Senate presence, Fede's victory signals a desire for legislative continuity and procedural experience. Running on a campaign that avoided grand ideological shifts, Fede's primary concern has historically been governance efficiency rather than radical policy changes.

Impact: Expect Fede to continue playing a moderating role in legislative debates, particularly on economic and legal reforms. Given the abolition of the STV voting system, the Lemon Party must now reconsider its electoral approach, but Fefur’s win ensures they remain a relevant force in SimDemocracy’s political landscape. His previous focus on Minecraft governance and security measures may also shape cross-platform policy discussions.

2. Senatrix BFurrnaryMeow (/u/BTernaryTau) – The Procedural Guardian (Independent)

What Their Victory Means: A longtime institutionalist, BTernaryTau represents legislative stability and process-driven governance. Her campaign was heavily centered on electoral integrity, proposing proportional by-elections as a means to refine post-STV governance.

Impact: As an Independent, BTernaryTau does not owe allegiance to any party, making them a key swing vote on divisive issues. Her main focus will be electoral reforms, governance procedures, and economic incentives, ensuring that the transition away from STV does not leave structural gaps in representation. With a track record of prioritizing Senate procedural clarity, expect her to take a central role in shaping legislative processes in the coming term.

3. Speaker Stalin (/u/JoesphStalinXDXDXDXD) – The Party Operator (New People's Party)

What Their Victory Means: As a leading figure in the NPP, Stalin’s victory consolidates the party’s influence within the Senate. His campaign reflected pragmatic economic policies and a commitment to increasing government participation by ensuring job opportunities for all SimDem citizens.

Impact: Stalin’s win reinforces the NPP’s dominance, ensuring that its legislative priorities—progressive taxation, economic oversight, and government expansion—remain front and center. His pro-gambling industry stance could introduce legislative pushes for economic diversification, while his advocacy for constituent services suggests a more hands-on approach to governance.

4. Senator Tie (/u/AbsurdistByNature) – The Engagement Candidate (SimDem National Party)

What Their Victory Means: A community-driven populist, Tie represents the engagement-first faction of SimDemocracy. His election signals that community events and social interaction remain a priority for voters, proving that legislative effectiveness alone is not enough to win a seat.

Impact: Expect Tie to push for more player-driven activities, such as poker nights, trivia, and contests, believing that a thriving community must extend beyond legislative governance. While his approach may clash with more technocratic legislators, his victory ensures that player retention and engagement will be actively discussed in the Senate. His push for a publicly available job database could improve accessibility to government roles, reinforcing his campaign’s broader theme of encouraging broader participation in SimDemocracy.

5. Senator Democracy-foryou (/u/Democracy-foryou) – The Economic Reformer (The Centre)

What Their Victory Means: Democracy-foryou’s campaign focused on revitalizing SimDem’s economy, advocating for private investment incentives, better resource allocation, and a reduced reliance on excessive government intervention. His victory underscores that economic reform remains a top priority for the electorate.

Impact: As one of the leading economic strategists in the Senate, Democracy-foryou is expected to champion market-driven policies, which will likely bring him into direct conflict with the statist policies of the NPP. His commitment to fighting alt-account abuse aligns with broader transparency efforts, and his policies are likely to emphasize business growth, tax reform, and financial sustainability.

6. Captain Creative (/u/Sorry_IamNotCreative) – The Institutional Architect (New People's Party)

What Their Victory Means: A former President and experienced legislator, Creative’s return to the Senate suggests that constitutional restructuring and legal clarity remain a pressing concern. His campaign revolved around reforming political party laws and improving the legal framework of SimDemocracy.

Impact: Creative is expected to spearhead legal reforms, focusing on constitutional amendments, clearer governance structures, and more defined political party regulations. His extensive executive experience strengthens the NPP’s institutional influence, ensuring that SimDem’s government framework continues evolving under structured guidance.

7. Senator Riley (/u/Riley8339) – The Reliable NPP Legislator (New People's Party)

What Their Victory Means: Riley’s election ensures that the NPP retains a strong voting bloc, emphasizing party cohesion and legislative continuity. His campaign did not diverge significantly from the NPP’s overarching platform, signaling a commitment to maintaining the party’s policy direction.

Impact: Expect Riley to be a loyal vote on key NPP-backed initiatives, particularly concerning progressive taxation, government expansion, and institutional reforms. While not a leading policy architect, his presence will help solidify the NPP’s legislative control.

8. Sen. MaroonedOctopus (/u/MaroonedOctopus) – The Conservative Voice (SPQR)

What Their Victory Means: Running under the SPQR banner, MaroonedOctopus represents a structured, hierarchical approach to governance. His election suggests that traditionalist governance models still hold relevance in SimDemocracy.

Impact: Expect MaroonedOctopus to support strong national security policies, conservative economic approaches, and legislative stability. His commitment to a well-regulated government structure aligns with SPQR’s push for reinforcing traditional state functions.

9. Senator Tech Support (/u/TechSupport631) – The Liberal Strategist (SimDem Liberal Party)

What Their Victory Means: Running on a pro-market, pro-democracy platform, Tech Support’s victory signals a commitment to economic liberalization and transparent governance. His election reflects the enduring appeal of moderate, liberal economic policies.

Impact: Expect Tech Support to push for market reforms, government transparency, and enhanced democratic engagement. His centrist stance positions him as a potential coalition-builder in an otherwise divided Senate, particularly on economic and governance issues.

10. Navigator Tripod (/u/tonsters2020) – The Socialist Wildcard (United Socialist League)

What Their Victory Means: Tripod’s election marks a notable win for the left-wing faction in SimDemocracy, particularly at a time when economic discourse is dominated by pro-market and interventionist centrists. His platform, however, is not a call for radical socialist upheaval, but rather a blend of economic pragmatism and government-driven social policy. His proposals, such as border security enhancements, progressive taxation, and military restructuring, suggest an approach that balances state control with functional governance rather than outright economic revolution.

Impact: Expect Tripod to advocate for stronger border protections in response to past security concerns while also pushing for progressive taxation to stabilize government finances. His military reform ideas—including a shift from a traditional force to a more unconventional, meme-driven "vault of memes" approach—show that he is willing to rethink institutions rather than simply expand them. However, with The Centre and NPP shaping the economic debate, Tripod will likely need to form strategic alliances to ensure his legislative priorities gain traction. While his push for pensions for government officials might find bipartisan support, his broader welfare expansion and state interventionist ideas may face resistance in a Senate where free-market advocates hold significant influence.

Key Takeaways: Winners, Losers, and What’s Next

Biggest Winners:

The New People’s Party (NPP) – With three Senators elected, the NPP remains the dominant force in legislative affairs. Their focus on progressive taxation, economic oversight, and institutional consolidation will shape key debates.

The Centre – Democracy-foryou’s win underscores continued support for economic reform, ensuring market-driven policies remain central to legislative discourse.

Biggest Losers:

Lemon Party – While Fede retained his seat, the abolition of STV forces them to rethink their future strategy.

The Rites of Election

Another election, another wave of declarations, slogans, and grandiose promises. The 136th Senatorial Election Call for Candidates marks yet another juncture in SimDemocracy’s ever-spinning political cycle—a ritualistic reaffirmation of its own existence. As candidates flood in, the fundamental question remains: does this election serve to advance the republic, or is it merely another performance in the theatre of self-preservation?

SimDemocracy, like all polsims, is built on perpetual engagement. It sustains itself not through economic growth or military conquest, but through the self-perpetuating drama of governance. Each election breathes temporary life into the system, reinvigorating old debates, reviving dormant figures, and convincing ambivalent participants that the Senate is an institution that truly matters.

Candidates as Symbols of a Stagnant Machine

A quick glance at the candidate field reveals a predictable lineup:

The Ideologues

The Institutionalists

The Populists

The Nationalists

A Candidate Breakdown

The Ideologues: Reformers and System Architects

The Ideologues are the candidates who see governance as more than just administration; they view it as an opportunity to reshape the very foundations of SimDemocracy. They are the legislators who want to pass bills that alter the game’s fundamental mechanics, creating lasting changes in how the government operates.

Among these, Sorry_IamNotCreative (NPP) is the quintessential constitutional architect, advocating for a deep reworking of SimDemocracy’s foundational laws. His focus is on constitutional reform, civil law overhaul, and restructuring political parties. He represents the technocratic governance approach, where efficiency and legal precision are the highest priorities. However, while his vision is grand, it risks overcomplicating governance and leading SimDem into legalistic gridlock, as ambitious legislative overhauls can often lead to unintended consequences. Democracy-foryou (Centre), on the other hand, represents the economic reformist faction of the Ideologues, prioritizing foreign trade, investment incentives, and sustainable fiscal policies. His belief is that SimDemocracy’s long-term health is tied to economic stability rather than political or legal restructuring. While pragmatic, his vision depends on the assumption that economic incentives drive participation, which is not always the case in polsims where engagement is often driven by political drama rather than financial opportunity.

The Institutionalists: Governance Traditionalists and Procedural Defenders

The Institutionalists do not seek to rewrite SimDemocracy’s rules—they seek to ensure those rules function smoothly. They focus on legislative efficiency, continuity, and avoiding the chaotic swings of radical governance.

BTernaryTau (Independent) embodies this philosophy as a governance traditionalist, prioritizing proportional by-elections, transparency, and ensuring SimDemocracy’s institutional endurance. She is an experienced legislator whose approach is about maintaining procedural integrity rather than making drastic changes. While effective, this playstyle is conservative in nature, meaning it does not offer the ambitious vision that more radical reformers bring to the table.

FedeReddit11 (Lemon Party) occupies a moderate reformist position, advocating for economic oversight, Minecraft governance improvements, and border security. His platform is less about maintaining SimDem’s current governance and more about adjusting it for efficiency without fully committing to an ideological overhaul. While pragmatic, he risks being overshadowed by more vocal reformists who push for sweeping change.

BluePantalaimon (Centre) (Akimov) complements Democracy-foryou’s economic stance but places more emphasis on economic expansion through business incentives while also engaging in community-building initiatives and diplomacy. He is pushing for a freer economy, more interactive community events, and a review of border policies to enhance SimDemocracy’s security and player retention. While aligned with the Centre’s market-driven policies, he also flirts with the populist engagement angle, making him a hybrid between economic institutionalism and community-driven governance.

The Populists: Activity-Driven Candidates Focused on Engagement

While the Ideologues and Institutionalists focus on governance mechanics, The Populists prioritize engagement and retention. They believe SimDemocracy’s survival depends on its community-driven nature rather than legislative refinement.

AbsurdistByNature (SDNP) is the community-first candidate, championing poker nights, trivia, and gaming tournaments. His argument is simple: SimDemocracy does not need more laws—it needs more reasons for people to stay engaged. This is a refreshing contrast to the legal and economic arguments of other candidates, but it also risks being insufficient if not paired with meaningful governance expertise. On the other hand, WayWornPort39 (Trustbusters) represents economic populism, advocating for anti-monopoly legislation, business competition, and free-market principles. He positions himself as a defender of economic freedom, arguing against monopolistic control and centralized government intervention. However, his anti-government rhetoric may be difficult to reconcile with the Senate’s inherently regulatory nature, limiting his effectiveness as a legislator.

The Nationalists: Security-Oriented and Stability-Focused Candidates

Unlike the other factions, The Nationalists prioritize security, stability, and the defense of SimDemocracy’s identity. They tend to favor strong government institutions, military oversight, and national unity over free-market economics or political restructuring.

Zepz367 (SPQR) exemplifies this with his pro-military, pro-security, and economic expansion platform. He believes in state cohesion and stability, rejecting the idea that SimDemocracy should be constantly redefining itself. His campaign appeals to those who see recent military defunding and administrative decentralization as a threat to SimDemocracy’s institutional strength. However, his military-heavy platform may alienate those who believe SimDem should be investing more in governance reform and economic restructuring rather than security.

Meteorite_h (CER Party) presents a policy-driven campaign, focusing on legislative clarity, strategic governance, and economic structuring. His platform is moderate but firm, combining aspects of Institutionalist efficiency with Nationalist stability. He may appeal to voters looking for policy expertise without ideological extremes.

MaroonedOctopus (SPQR) runs on a strong national identity platform, positioning himself as a patriot dedicated to revitalizing the subreddit and ensuring fair representation. His focus on protecting rights and creating a regular "State of the Subreddit" address is an attempt to strengthen governance while maintaining democratic principles. His challenge will be balancing institutional oversight with active governance—avoiding becoming a figurehead senator who is more symbolic than effective.

How have parties positioned themselves?

The New People’s Party (NPP) – The Institutional Reformers

Strategic Positioning: Legal and structural reform, centralized governance, economic pragmatism Candidate Approach: Highly structured, governance-heavy platforms

The NPP is the most institutionally-focused party in this election, with its candidates deeply involved in the legal and procedural framework of SimDemocracy. Sorry_IamNotCreative is the party’s flagship candidate, pushing for constitutional rewrites, party law restructuring, and civil code revisions. His campaign is not about incremental policy shifts—it is about locking in long-term structural changes that would reshape how governance functions in SimDemocracy.

NPP’s second major candidate, JosephStalinXDXDXDXD, provides a complementary yet distinct approach, balancing progressive taxation and economic structuring with a focus on constituent services and fostering government job opportunities. While not as explicitly legalistic as Creative, he still aligns with NPP’s broad goal of making government more structured and self-sustaining. Two heavily experienced candidates, who long predate the Danyo expansion of SimDem. Some would question if this would signal a return to the old guard.

The NPP's meta-strategy is clear: governance must be structured, intentional, and legally airtight. It is a party built for legislative and procedural dominance, and its candidates reflect this. The weakness of this approach is that it risks alienating more casual players who see SimDemocracy as a game first and a government second.

The Centre – The Economic Technocrats

Strategic Positioning: Market-driven governance, economic sustainability, pragmatism Candidate Approach: Focused on policy over politics, technocratic messaging

The Centre is positioning itself as the practical, non-ideological alternative to the more governance-heavy NPP. Its main representative, Democracy-foryou, has focused almost entirely on economic restructuring—reducing reliance on government-controlled spending, increasing market engagement, and ensuring SimDemocracy does not run into fiscal mismanagement issues.

Unlike NPP’s law-heavy approach, the Centre is market-driven, arguing that SimDemocracy should function more like a real-world economy, with incentives and market behaviors shaping the simulation. This approach could win over voters who care about economic balance but dislike bureaucratic overreach.

However, while the Centre is economically focused, it does not neglect governance and community-building efforts. Akimov, in particular, takes a more holistic approach, balancing economic revitalization with community engagement, diplomatic relations with other polsims like VoD, and maintaining freedom of speech while ensuring that harmful groups like TIDE do not infiltrate the server. This makes the Centre one of the few parties that actively recognizes both the importance of SimDemocracy’s economy and its broader social ecosystem, aiming to preserve stability without sacrificing adaptability.

However, the Centre’s main weakness is that it has not fielded multiple strong candidates. A sophomore and freshman Senator lineup might mean that experience could be a electoral issue that comes up. This also means that their success hinges entirely on Democracy-foryou and Akimov’s ability to push their agenda through a fragmented Senate.

SimDemocracy National Party (SDNP) – The Populist Activists

Strategic Positioning: Community engagement, increasing player activity, events-driven governance Candidate Approach: Broad appeal, less focus on policy details, more on engagement

The SDNP is taking a community-first approach, arguing that a simulation is only as strong as its player base. AbsurdistByNature, its most visible candidate, is not running on a platform of governance efficiency or economic policy—he is running on activity, events, and player engagement. His campaign focuses on game nights, tournaments, and expanding the social aspect of SimDemocracy.

This positions the SDNP as the party of engagement, countering the law-heavy NPP and the policy-focused Centre. It plays directly to voters who see SimDemocracy as an interactive game rather than a rigid political simulation. The SDNP’s biggest challenge is that it lacks depth in governance expertise, meaning that if it gains power, it will likely struggle to push through serious legislation.

SPQR – The Nationalist Traditionalists

Strategic Positioning: National unity, security, conservative stability Candidate Approach: Strong emphasis on order, identity, and government cohesion

The SPQR party is adopting a security-first approach, advocating for national strength, military presence, and structured governance. Zepz367 is its most prominent candidate, pushing for a stable, security-focused government with an emphasis on economic incentives and military revitalization. MaroonedOctopus, another SPQR candidate, focuses on revitalizing the subreddit and ensuring long-term government stability.

SPQR’s approach is a reaction to what it sees as governmental instability and fragmentation. Its candidates argue that SimDemocracy has been too loose in its governance and too inconsistent in its policy direction, and they want to bring structure and stability back to the system. However, SPQR’s challenge will be convincing voters that military spending and security concerns are as important as economic and governance reforms.

The Trustbusters – The Economic Populists

Strategic Positioning: Anti-monopoly, pro-business competition, economic decentralization Candidate Approach: Highly focused on corporate regulation and market fairness

The Trustbusters are running on an anti-corporate, pro-market platform, arguing that SimDemocracy’s economic elite have too much power and that business interests need to be more competitive and open. WayWornPort39 is the primary candidate for this movement, focusing on breaking monopolistic control over the SimDemocracy economy.

Unlike the Centre’s free-market approach, the Trustbusters believe that government intervention is necessary to prevent economic centralization. This economic populist stance will likely resonate with voters who feel excluded from SimDem’s major economic centers, but it also risks alienating pro-business factions who believe market competition should be organic rather than government-mandated.

The Independents – The Wild Cards

Strategic Positioning: Personal brands over party loyalty, issue-based governance Candidate Approach: Diverse, fragmented, non-unified

Unlike party-affiliated candidates, the Independents have no centralized strategy. They represent a broad range of views, some more structured than others.

BTernaryTau acts as a governance traditionalist, emphasizing proportional by-elections and economic incentives.

Jvpjvp54545 brands himself as a non-partisan senator, prioritizing responsiveness over ideology.

Responsible_Big9221 offers a populist-lite campaign, promising to listen to the people but without a clear legislative vision.

The strength of the Independents is their flexibility, but their weakness is their fragmentation. Without a party to coordinate strategy, they will likely struggle to pass coherent legislation unless they align with a dominant faction.

ppatpat's predictions

In the annals of history, battles are waged not just with swords and shields, but with strategy, resilience, and an indomitable spirit. In a clash that will be remembered for ages, ppatpat and mbh292 met on the battlefield, their empires standing as titanic monuments to power. The dust has settled, the echoes of war have faded, and what remains is a tale of triumph and valiant resistance.

The Rise and Fall of Nations: The First Battle

It began with the might of Rome. ppatpat’s Roman Empire, draped in the laurels of conquest, struck first, dealing a devastating blow of 911 damage to mbh292’s Vatican. With one swift strike, the Vatican was no more—a fragile city-state crushed beneath the weight of imperial ambition. A counterstrike came, but it was feeble—a mere scratch on the armor of Rome.

The Roman war machine continued its onslaught, sending another crushing wave of 985 damage, ensuring the Vatican’s doom yet again. But mbh292 was not yet vanquished. From the ashes rose the Third French Republic, a bastion of revolutionary fervor. With a thunderous assault, it inflicted 623 damage upon Rome, signaling that the tides of war were far from settled.

Blow after blow, the two powers exchanged fire, the Republic wounding the empire, the empire refusing to yield. With a final, earth-shaking strike of 1008 damage, the Roman legions sealed their victory, toppling the Third French Republic and cementing their dominance in the first battle.

A New Dawn, A New War: The Second Battle

War has no end, only interludes. In their second encounter, it was no longer Rome that took the field, but South Korea, the phoenix of the modern age, bearing the banner of ppatpat. Against it stood mbh292’s Kalmar Union, a coalition of northern resolve.

The opening salvo was fierce—South Korea struck with 871 damage, but Kalmar retaliated with even greater force, unleashing 914 damage in return. The battle was fierce and unrelenting, but Kalmar’s might proved too great; with a final, devastating blow of 731 damage, South Korea fell.

But ppatpat’s Italy rose from the ruins, determined to carry the torch forward. With a decisive strike, Italy avenged South Korea, toppling the Kalmar Union and setting its sights on the next challenger: mbh292’s resilient Third French Republic.

Round after round, these two powers exchanged blows, each strike a symphony of destruction. The Republic fought with relentless determination, dealing powerful blows, but Italy held strong, weathering the storm. In a crescendo of steel and fire, a mighty 408 damage shattered the Republic’s last defenses—Italy emerged victorious, but the war was not over.

From the east came the Qing, a dynasty of unyielding endurance. A new battle began, marked not by colossal strikes but by the slow, grinding attrition of war. Italy and the Qing exchanged a series of cautious blows, each testing the other’s resolve. The war waged on, each side refusing to fall.

By ppatpat (u/Ramiorebokhara)

SimDemocracy’s 135th Senate began not with the usual pomp and formality but with a firestorm of accusations, procedural disputes, and an impeachment battle that ended with a Senator’s resignation.

At the center of this spectacle stood Senator Lucas and Senator Noll, each accusing the other of misconduct in what quickly escalated into a constitutional crisis. The catalyst? A foreign policy debacle involving Voices of Democracy (VoD), a rival political entity, and a series of inflammatory exchanges that led to allegations of misconduct, threats, and conflicts of interest.

The First Blow: Noll’s Motion to Impeach Lucas

Senator Noll was the first to strike, calling for Lucas’ removal on the grounds that he had taken foreign policy into his own hands, threatened VoD members, and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a Senator. According to Noll, Lucas’ behavior endangered SimDem’s international standing and undermined the authority of the State Department and the President.

The Senate was barely absorbing the weight of these accusations when Lucas fired back with his own impeachment motion—against Noll.

The Counterattack: Lucas Moves to Impeach Noll

Lucas, in a counteroffensive that seemed as much political as it was personal, accused Noll of using his Senate position to serve foreign interests, undermining SimDemocracy from within, and gaming the system to remove a pro-war Senator. The motion implied that Noll’s loyalties lay not with SimDem, but with VoD, suggesting that his push for impeachment was an attempt to protect his own interests rather than uphold Senate integrity.

Now, with both Senators demanding each other's removal, the chamber found itself in an unprecedented crisis.

A Leadership Void and a Question of Authority

The absence of an elected Speaker only added to the disorder. Speaker elections had not yet been conducted, and the Vice President had been inactive for nearly 24 hours. In response, Senator ppatpat, as the first elected Senator, assumed the role of Presiding Officer under the Senate Rules and Procedures Act.

But was his move legitimate?

Under the Senate Rules and Procedures Act, if both the Speaker and the Vice President are absent, the first elected Senator assumes the role of Presiding Officer. This was the legal basis for ppatpat’s claim to authority.

His assumption of power was not an arbitrary decision, but rather a procedural necessity. Without someone to preside over the chamber, no votes could be cast, no motions could be processed, and the Senate would remain paralyzed in a state of limbo.

In the absence of an official Speaker election and with the Vice President inactive for nearly 24 hours, the government could not afford inaction. Chaos was already brewing with the dual impeachment motions, and someone had to take control before the situation escalated further.

However, there was a counterargument—one voiced most loudly by Lucas.

Lucas contended that the arbitrarily set 24-hour period of Vice Presidential inactivity had not yet fully elapsed, making ppatpat’s assumption of power premature. If true, this would mean that the Senate was still in the window where the Vice President retained authority, even if inactive.

Furthermore, the Senate had not yet formally voted on ppatpat’s authority, meaning that his presiding role was based on an interpretation of the law rather than explicit confirmation from the chamber. Some Senators questioned whether a temporary vacancy due to inactivity constituted “absence” in a way that allowed succession to take place.

Under existing Senate procedures, if both the Speaker and Vice President are absent, the first elected Senator may assume the role of Presiding Officer. The question, however, is what constitutes “absence” in this context. The Vice President had been inactive for nearly 24 hours, but there was no official ruling declaring them incapacitated. Some Senators, including ppatpat, argued that inactivity alone was sufficient grounds for triggering the succession clause. Others, particularly Senator Lucas, countered that an arbitrary 24-hour period had not technically elapsed, making ppatpat’s assumption of power premature. This gray area in the law led to an immediate challenge to ppatpat’s authority, culminating in a motion to override his decision. While some saw ppatpat’s move as a practical necessity in a moment of disorder, others viewed it as a questionable expansion of Senate power without formal approval.

This led to a motion to override the Presiding Officer’s decision, effectively challenging the legitimacy of ppatpat’s authority.

At its core, this was not an issue of corruption, but of ambiguity. The law provided a mechanism for a Presiding Officer to take charge in the absence of leadership, but the definition of "absence" was open to interpretation.

Had the Vice President been clearly and officially incapacitated, ppatpat’s claim would have been undisputed. But because the Vice President was simply inactive, rather than formally removed, there was room for doubt.

However, in the absence of any immediate alternative, ppatpat’s decision was the most practical course of action. The Senate could not afford to sit in limbo during an active impeachment process. Waiting longer would have meant further dysfunction at a time when the chamber was already descending into chaos.

Ultimately, Lucas’ resignation validated ppatpat’s authority by default. Without Lucas pressing the challenge, the Senate moved forward under ppatpat’s leadership, then Imade's when they returned without further incident.

The Sudden Collapse: Lucas Resigns

With tensions mounting and procedural battles dragging on, Lucas stunned the chamber by announcing his resignation.

His final statements were not those of a politician defeated by process, but of a man exhausted by the relentless storm of accusations and legal maneuvering. "I was here to have fun, not this," he declared. In a moment of bitterness and frustration, he bid farewell, leaving behind an unfinished impeachment hearing and a Senate forced to pick up the pieces.

A Hollow Victory?

With Lucas’ resignation, his impeachment motion against Noll became meaningless. The debate adjourned, and SimDemocracy was left with more questions than answers.

What had this fight accomplished? Was this a necessary reckoning for Senate decorum, or merely a political skirmish fueled by personal rivalries? Was Noll’s motion a principled stand against rogue behavior, or a calculated move to eliminate a political opponent?

What is clear is this: The Senate, only just convened, has already been pushed to its limits.

The Road Ahead

Lucas’ departure leaves a vacant Senate seat, necessitating a by-election. The chamber must also resolve the procedural ambiguities that allowed this crisis to unfold in the first place. The question of defining "incapacity" in succession law remains unanswered.

Perhaps most critically, the episode exposes the fragility of SimDemocracy’s political landscape. In a system that thrives on competition, the line between legitimate political maneuvering and reckless infighting is perilously thin.

This was not just a battle of two Senators. It was a test of the Senate itself.

If there is one certainty in SimDemocracy, it is that elections never fail to deliver a spectacle. The 135th Senatorial Election was no exception—if anything, it was an exhibition in electoral persistence. Thirty-three rounds of counting. Over 120 votes. More eliminated hopefuls than a reality show finale. And yet, for all the drama, the results told a story both old and new: continuity with a twist, stability with a dash of unpredictability.

The Multi-Round Bloodbath

The first thing that stands out in this election is just how long it took for anyone to actually win a seat. In previous elections, it wasn't uncommon for frontrunners to cross the quota early, locking in their positions before the elimination process had thinned out the weaker candidates. This time? Not a single candidate reached the quota in the first round.

From the outset, the live count turned into an endurance test. One by one, minor independent candidates dropped—Crosby, Jvpjvp54545, BelugaWhaleMan9, and so on. These early eliminations were expected; running as an independent without a strong base of party support is a near-impossible challenge in SimDemocracy’s electoral system.

But then, the surprises started.

Unexpected Early Eliminations: The BiCamel Dream and Incumbent Fatigue?

One of the first major upsets was the elimination of Olive, a Lemon Party candidate, in Round 4. The Lemon Party, historically a core faction within The Liberty Coalition, had performed well in previous elections. Their struggles in this cycle were telling—TLC’s ability to consolidate votes seems to have been weaker than before.

Meanwhile, in Round 5, Tie of the BiCamel Party was eliminated. The electorate was evidently not sold on the party’s vision of bisexual camels (or whatever it is they actually stand for). While nobody expected them to dominate, their failure to gain traction may hint at a general reluctance among voters to gamble on new, untested parties.

After a string of independents and joke candidates were eliminated, the first real ideological blow came in Round 16: Logry of the United Socialist League was eliminated. While USL has historically had difficulty competing against more mainstream parties, their elimination at this stage was still a disappointment for the left-wing faction within SimDem.

USL, though not a dominant force, has typically maintained a steady presence in the Senate. Their failure to secure a seat this time is significant. It suggests that either:

Their usual voting bloc is eroding, or

Their voters consolidated behind other left-wing factions instead.

This is particularly notable because USL is a part of The Liberty Coalition. If TLC’s grip on Senate elections was as absolute as some claimed, Logry would not have gone down this early.

Other surprising eliminations followed:

Original is concussed (NPP) in Round 17—Suggesting that even New People's Party (NPP) candidates were not immune to the vote-splitting chaos.

JoesphStalinXDXDXDXD (NPP) in Round 30—A high-profile loss that further complicated NPP’s standing.

Aerie (Phoenix Party) in Round 31—Showing that the newly rebranded party still had vulnerabilities.

Each of these eliminations hinted at deeper shifts beneath the surface.

Where Are the Winners?

The lack of a clear frontrunner meant that for the first 22 rounds, there were no declared winners—only a constant culling of the weakest candidates. For those at the top of the count, this meant that their path to election was built on a slow accumulation of transfers from eliminated candidates rather than immediate victories.

Finally, in Round 23, the first senator was elected: Ppatpat of The Centre.

A Series of Political Aftershocks

Once the first seat was filled, others followed in rapid succession:

Mypenjustbroke (NPP) in Round 27—a key win for the New People’s Party, proving they still have pull.

Senator Fede (Lemon Party) in Round 29—an important morale boost for the struggling LP.

Democracy-foryou (The Centre) in Round 32, solidifying The Centre as a dominant force.

The last few rounds saw a mix of independents, Phoenix Party candidates (formerly the Popular Front), and other ideological factions scraping together just enough votes to claim their seats.

The final Senate included:

The Centre (2 seats)—Ppatpat and Democracy-foryou, ensuring their continued influence.

New People’s Party (3 seats)—Mypenjustbroke, Kelvin and TheNorwegianMoose's wins give them a continued foothold.

Lemon Party (1 seat)—Senator Fede saves the party from total disaster.

Phoenix Party (2 seats)—Lucas and Confused Senatorial Bartender mark the rise of the newly renamed opposition.

United Socialist League (1 seat)—Dutchmapping, their sole representative.

Revolutionary Organization for Social Equality (1 seat)—Delarosa, continuing the presence of the far-left.

Two Independents— BTernaryTau and Noll, who seem to be the swing votes in the new 135th Senate.

This result, while diverse, shows an undeniable shift.

The 135th Senate

This Senate is more ideologically diverse than before. The Phoenix Party won two seats of their own. This is a solid performance but not dominant. Their challenge will be moving from rhetoric to governance—opposition is easy, passing laws is hard.If they don’t deliver tangible results, their voter base could erode just as quickly as it grew. The Phoenix Party ran on breaking TLC’s monopoly. Now that they have seats, they’ll be expected to back up their words with action.

There is a peculiar phenomenon in SimDemocracy, one that rears its head after every decisive election: the insistence that overwhelming victories are somehow a sign of democracy’s failure rather than its success. That when one coalition continues to win, it is not because of its strategic prowess, its policy successes, or its ability to unite disparate factions, but because the system is rigged in its favor.

If there’s one thing SimDemocracy has always been known for, it’s the revolving door of political factions that claim dominance, only for their foundations to erode beneath them. The latest concern, voiced by critics of The Liberty Coalition (TLC), suggests that the coalition has become an unbreakable political juggernaut, stifling opposition and ensuring that elections are little more than procedural exercises in ratifying preordained outcomes. This is not a new sentiment. In every real-world democracy, the losing side always has a reason why it wasn’t a “fair fight.” But at the heart of it all lies a question that must be answered: when does a dominant political force become a problem, and when is it merely the natural consequence of democracy working as intended?

Let's step back and examine whether that claim holds up against the actual data.

Coalitions Are Not Permanent, Nor Are They Omnipotent

The idea that TLC has cemented itself as the governing establishment may appear convincing at first glance, given the results of the 135th Presidential Election, where Creative-Imade won decisively against a weak opposition. However, those raising alarms about an entrenched political monopoly are conveniently ignoring a fundamental reality of SimDemocracy: coalitions shift, and power is never as stable as it seems.

Just look back to the 133rd Presidential Election. The landscape at that time was entirely different. The Unity Coalition, which included the SPQR-LP alliance, was pitted against the SDPB (SimDemocracy Progressive Bloc), with Imade as their candidate. By the numbers, these two blocs were nearly equal in size, yet SDPB had the strategic foresight to align with Creative, agreeing to mutually rank each other as their second-choice votes. The result? A crucial advantage in the final vote redistribution.

This demonstrates a key lesson: strategy and cooperation matter more than sheer numbers. Political dominance in SimDemocracy isn’t dictated by a single group hoarding power indefinitely. It is secured through calculated coalition-building, the ability to attract support from diverse factions, and, most importantly, capitalizing on the opposition's weaknesses.

An Inability to Organize

For all the hand-wringing about TLC’s influence, critics fail to acknowledge that the opposition has consistently failed to present a compelling alternative.

Take the most recent 135th Presidential Election as a case study. The opposition’s performance wasn’t merely weak—it was nonexistent. There were only three candidates who had any real presence, and all of them were aligned with the outgoing administration in some way. The supposed anti-TLC factions either failed to mobilize or were content to split their votes in symbolic protest rather than present a unified challenge.

Elections are won by showing up, and simply complaining about the dominant coalition while failing to do the basic work of campaigning, organizing, and forming strategic alliances is not a serious path to victory. TLC did not win because it manipulated the system; it won because no one else made a credible attempt to do the same.

Solutions in Search of a Problem

Some have suggested that the solution to this perceived problem is term limits, arguing that restricting consecutive terms would prevent long-standing figures like Imade from continuing to wield influence. However, this argument ignores the realities of player retention and engagement in SimDemocracy.

The early days of SimDemocracy saw a much smaller player base, where the same 30 people had to fill every major executive, legislative, and judicial position. The landscape has changed, with many more engaged participants, but the issue remains: competence is not evenly distributed. There is a reason experienced politicians are consistently elected—they are active, they govern effectively, and they understand the SimDem better than most newcomers.

Would term limits actually improve governance, or would they simply force capable leaders out, creating a vacuum that would be filled by lesser-prepared individuals? More often than not, restricting experience leads to instability, not renewal. If anything, SimDemocracy’s history has shown that natural political cycles—not arbitrary restrictions—are the best safeguard against stagnation.

Power Is Not a Conspiracy, It’s a Choice

The notion that TLC is an unstoppable political machine ignores the fluid nature of SimDemocracy’s history. Alliances shift. Parties fracture. The dominant coalition of today can be the struggling opposition of tomorrow. But none of that happens unless someone actually makes an effort to change the balance of power.

Rather than pushing half-baked institutional reforms like term limits, the real question should be: Why does the opposition consistently fail to compete?

Complaining about an entrenched establishment is easy. Winning elections is hard. If there is to be a viable alternative to TLC, it will not come from petitions or constitutional amendments—it will come from a coalition that is willing to organize, campaign, and actually fight to win.

There are elections, and then there are mandates. The 135th Presidential Election in SimDemocracy was not so much a battle of ideas as it was the consummation of a foregone conclusion. The Liberty Coalition, that ever-growing federation of centre-left-leaning pragmatists and populists, has swept into power with an authority so absolute that one wonders whether this was an election at all—or a ratification of what was already written into the political fabric.

The New People’s Party’s u/Sorry_IamNotCreative, better known simply as “Creative,” rode into office with a coalition so vast that it effectively suffocated opposition before it had the chance to take its first breath. And who was his opposition? A collection of afterthoughts, footnotes in the grand ledger of SimDemocracy’s political history.

The Landslide: A Victory Measured in Margins, Not Mandates

With 401 points, Creative's dominance was undisputed—more than double that of the next closest competitor, whose paltry 196 points served as little more than an electoral courtesy. The numbers don’t lie: this was a slaughter, not a skirmish. The other candidates may have been on the ballot, but in the grand design of this election, they were barely participants.

In the runoff, where ranked-choice voting might have given a less prominent candidate a fighting chance, the result remained the same: Creative was left standing while his opponent, u/Legitimate-Monk2594, was all but an afterthought, taking in a mere 18 reassigned points.

This wasn’t just a victory—it was an annihilation.

Where Was the Opposition?

Elections are meant to be the proving ground of ideas, a sacred contest in which candidates are tested not just by their supporters, but by their detractors. That did not happen here. The opposition, such as it was, mounted no meaningful resistance.

This was an election defined by its lack of competition, a triumph not of debate but of inevitability. It was, in short, a coronation dressed up as democracy. There was no insurgent underdog, no populist firebrand railing against the system, no charismatic reformer rallying the discontented. Instead, the field consisted of candidates who, for all their policy proposals and idealistic rhetoric, never truly had a path to victory.

The Path Forward: Dynasty?

Creative’s presidency is now a reality, and with it comes the expectation of governance. The Liberty Coalition has consolidated power to an extent unseen in recent memory, but absolute power is a dangerous thing—both for those who hold it and for the system itself.

Unchecked majorities can breed complacency, and complacency is the enemy of good government. SimDemocracy does not need an administration that rules; it needs an administration that governs. It does not need a coalition that consolidates power; it needs one that earns it.

If Creative and the Liberty Coalition fail to meet this moment—if they mistake dominance for infallibility—then this lopsided victory may yet be their undoing. Because power, as history reminds us, is never permanent. It shifts, it fractures, it finds new homes in unlikely places.

They came in shadows, slinking through the halls of power not by the grace of democracy, but by the corruption of deceit. They spoke in whispers, not with the voices of free men, but with the hushed tones of conspirators who dare not utter their true aims in the daylight. They infiltrated, manipulated, lied, and schemed—until, at last, the law came knocking.

This morning, justice arrived.

In a historic enforcement action, the Department of Justice executed Operation Kashmir, an unrelenting counterstrike against the Proletarian Unity Party (PuP) and their foreign masters, the so-called "Golden Consciousness." The result? Over 100 fraudulent accounts, exposed and eradicated, cast into the void where all enemies of democracy belong.

Make no mistake—this was not the censorship of dissent. This was the excision of a cancer. These people did not seek debate. They did not seek representation. They sought domination through deception, conquest through infiltration, and chaos through cowardice. And now, at the stroke of a Supreme Court order, their schemes lie in ruin.

The Insurgency

For four days, the Justice Department worked tirelessly, unmasking the network of frauds who had slithered their way into our democratic institutions. Their crime? Subversion. Their method? Deception. Their goal? The total collapse of SimDemocracy’s government.

They were not content to lurk in the shadows; they sought power. Through deceit and falsehood, they slipped one of their own into the Senate, not by the will of the people, but through the dirty mechanics of fraud. They built a network of alts, sock puppets, and coordinated disinformation—all with one aim: the destruction of SimDemocracy from within.

But today, the walls have closed in.

Acting under Emergency Counter-Terrorism Powers, Supreme Court Justice Sparty gave the green light. And with surgical precision, the DOJ purged their influence, restoring integrity where it had been so brazenly defiled.

And what, pray tell, do these charlatans do when exposed? Do they repent? Do they accept the weight of their failure? No. Like all cowards, they scurry into their holes and plot their revenge.

The Wailing of the Defeated

In an act of sheer desperation, these traitors—having been ripped from the institutions they sought to corrupt—now threaten a campaign of brigading, harassment, and destruction. Like the spoiled child denied his stolen toy, they now promise retribution against the very people they sought to deceive.

It is a textbook display of authoritarian tantrum-throwing. Having failed in their conspiracy, they now threaten a mob assault, hoping to burn the village after failing to claim the throne.

Let them try.

President Imade, recognizing the severity of the threat, has enacted a State of Caution—a preemptive measure to ensure that these ideological terrorists do not make good on their promises of sabotage. The Justice Department, already one step ahead, has begun intelligence-sharing with our allies in Voices of Democracy (VoD), who are now facing the same foreign-backed infiltration attempts.

The Hammer of Justice

Let this be a lesson to all who would undermine the institutions of free people. We have seen their kind before—liars who hide behind the mask of revolution, infiltrators who drape themselves in the language of justice while plotting the destruction of all who oppose them.

These people do not debate. They deceive. They do not govern. They scheme. They do not build. They corrode.

But they have failed.

SimDemocracy does not bend to fraudsters and ideologues. It is a democracy of laws, not liars. A republic of justice, not demagogues. A fortress that does not crumble at the first sign of infiltrators in cheap disguises.

Their attempt to steal power has ended. Their attempt to burn it down will be crushed just as swiftly.

The DOJ is watching. The administration is ready. The people stand united.

And when the dust settles, these frauds will be remembered not as revolutionaries, not as visionaries, but as disgraced, defeated failures.

It was not long ago that the SimDem Progressive Bloc (SDPB) was an immovable force in SimDem. It seemed to be the next dominant force in the electoral landscape, being the first coalition to win re-election in a while. Individuals came and went, other coalitions rose and fell, but through it all, the SDPB endured.

Until now.

What was once the dominant political force in SimDemocracy is now a husk of itself, scattered into irrelevance, with no clear successor to its once-commanding role. Its collapse has left a vacuum—a void where stability once reigned, and in that void, something new has taken shape.

The Liberty Coalition.

Formed from an unlikely but strategic alliance between the New People’s Party (NPP), The Centre, the Lemon Party, and the United Socialist League (USL), the Liberty Coalition has emerged not just as a political entity, but as the de facto establishment in the wake of SDPB’s demise.

And now, with a presidential election looming, the question is no longer whether the Liberty Coalition will win, but whether it will dominate—and who, if anyone, can stand against it.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

The fall of the SDPB was not a single event. It was not a coup, not a dramatic collapse, not a moment that could be pointed to in history as the day the party died. It was a slow, grinding death.

The radicals pushed harder. The moderates resisted. Neither side won, and neither side could govern.

And then, one by one, the members began to leave.

Some defected to other parties, seeking a fresh start. Others simply disappeared, burned out from years of infighting, disillusioned with a party that could not even agree on what it stood for anymore.

When the dust settled, the SDPB was gone.

Not because it lost an election. Not because it was defeated by a stronger opponent. But because it could no longer sustain itself.

It ate itself alive.

But nature abhors a vacuum. And politics even more so.

The Rise of the Liberty Coalition

Where the SDPB fell, a new force has risen. The Liberty Coalition is not a party—it is something much more dangerous. It is a machine.

Composed of the New People’s Party, The Centre, the Lemon Party, and the United Socialist League, it represents a consensus from the electorate. Because this coalition is not just bound by shared ideology—it is also bound by a shared understanding of power.

Each faction brings something vital to the table:

The NPP brings organization and discipline. It knows how to run a campaign, how to rally voters, how to ensure that its candidates win elections early and decisively.

The Centre brings legitimacy. It is the bridge between factions, the moderating force that ensures the coalition does not collapse under the weight of its contradictions.

The Lemon Party brings personality. It is the face of the movement, the faction that appeals to the disillusioned and the politically homeless, the populists and the jokers alike.

The USL brings ideology. It is the ideological firebrand of the group, the faction that ensures the coalition does not become yet another aimless bureaucracy.

The Presidential Election: A Foregone Conclusion?

For the first time in recent memory, there is no singular opposition force. With the SDPB shattered, no dominant party remains to stand against the Liberty Coalition. But unlike past power blocs, this is not a coalition built purely on pragmatism—it is a coalition of shared ideals.

The Liberty Coalition is not merely an alliance of convenience—it is an ideological project. The NPP’s commitment to democratic integrity, The Centre’s belief in balanced governance, the Lemon Party’s championing of personal freedoms, and the USL’s vision for economic justice are not contradictions—they are complementary forces. It is a coalition bound by a common vision for a SimDemocracy that is freer, fairer, and more functional than the governments that came before.

And yet, even the strongest alliances face challenges.

Their greatest threat is not an external rival—it is their own ability to deliver on their promise. Because coalitions forged in the pursuit of an idea must eventually put that idea into practice. The NPP’s institutionalist discipline will have to coexist with the Lemon Party’s populist streak. The Centre’s pragmatism must find harmony with the USL’s activist zeal.

But elections are the easy part. Governance is harder. Maintaining ideological unity in the face of compromise, opposition, and the inevitable weight of power? That is the true test.

There are whispers of independent challengers, of smaller factions attempting to rise from the wreckage of the SDPB. But if the Liberty Coalition falters, if it fails to govern as effectively as it campaigns, those factions will grow in strength.

For now, the road is clear. The Liberty Coalition will march into this election as the rightful inheritors of SimDemocracy’s political establishment.

But the question is no longer who will win this election.

SimDemocracy is no stranger to political intrigue, but the 134th Senatorial Elections took things to an entirely new level. What should have been a routine transition of power became a cautionary tale in election integrity, a test case in legislative oversight, and a stark reminder that no vote is truly final until the ink is dry.

At first, the results seemed clear. Twelve senators elected. Some expected victors, some surprises, and the usual post-election grumbling. And then—a bombshell.

The Electoral Commission, in a move more befitting an investigative tribunal than an administrative body, announced that a number of votes were fraudulent. The results, it seemed, were not as final as they appeared. Ten votes vanished. Three senators lost their seats. Others, thought to be eliminated, were suddenly back in the game. If the 133rd elections were about shifting coalitions, the 134th were about something far more fundamental: who actually gets to sit in the Senate, and who decides?

Let us now turn to the battlefield and assess the wreckage.

The Fraud Bombshell

Then we arrive at the moment that ensured this election will be remembered long after its senators have left office. Every election has its controversies. A close vote, a surprise upset, a faction blindsided by its own miscalculations. But the 134th Senatorial Elections gave us something entirely different—a fundamental reckoning over who gets to vote, who gets to count the votes, and, most alarmingly, who gets to decide which votes count at all.

At first, the results were announced with the usual fanfare. Candidates celebrated, others resigned themselves to defeat, and political operatives took notes for the next round of campaigning. But then came the statement that changed everything. The Electoral Commission, in an unprecedented move, refused to certify the results outright. Instead, it declared that it had reason to believe some of the votes cast were fraudulent. Not mistaken. Not miscounted. Fraudulent.

This was not merely a clerical issue, not a procedural snag to be ironed out. This was an outright indictment of the electoral process itself. The Commission held in its hands the power to rewrite the results, to strip some candidates of their victories and restore the hopes of those who had assumed their campaigns were over. And it used that power swiftly. With a swing of the electoral hammer, ten votes were struck from the record. The number may seem small, a mere fraction of the total ballots cast, but it was enough to shift the Senate’s composition. Two provisional senators found themselves wiped from the rolls, their brief tenure as Senators ending before it could begin. And, just as dramatically, those who had assumed they had fallen short were suddenly elevated into office.

The Election That Wasn’t

The provisional results painted one picture. The finalized results, another entirely.

121 votes were initially counted.

After the fraud audit, that number fell to 111.

Twelve seats remained—just barely. Had even a handful more votes been removed, the entire election might have collapsed into a constitutional crisis over whether a new formula should be applied.

But the real story isn’t in the numbers—it’s in the people.

Who Was Cut? Who Was Resurrected?

Gone from the provisional winners’ list were Sergeant Lucas (SimDem Communist Party), zhen (Proletarian Unity Party) and MrFishsticks (United Socialist League). Their seats were erased, their victories nullified, through the good work of the Electoral Commission, ensuring the will of the people were heard.

In their place, Senator FLY GUY (Independent), Kelvin (Fucking Best Party), and Thyme (Lemon Party) found themselves elected, despite initially being eliminated. The implications of this cannot be overstated.

A fraud review did not simply remove a handful of illegitimate ballots—it changed the composition of the legislative body. That is not a footnote. That is a paradigm shift.

133rd Elections: The Bloodbath of Independents

The 133rd elections were a massacre for independents. Candidates without party backing were eliminated left and right, with only one managing to survive the rounds of elimination and make it to the Senate.

New People’s Party (NPP) dominated, securing three seats.

The Centre held its ground, electing two senators.

United Socialist League (USL), SimDem Communist Party, and their allies showed up strong, securing representation.

But independents? They were all but wiped out.

134th Elections: A Partial Reversal

Then came the 134th, where independents staged an unlikely comeback—thanks, in no small part, to the fraud review.

Three independents won seats, up from the dismal showing of the previous election.

The NPP still held firm with two.

The Centre was reduced to a single senator, as Fake President Sam Belic was eliminated.

The LUF and the SCP, which had a presence in the 133rd, were obliterated completely.

The message here is as brutal as it is simple: the ranked-choice system giveth, and the ranked-choice system taketh away. One cycle, your faction is dominant; the next, it is struggling for survival. The only consistency is change.

The Election That Broke Time

There are few certainties in politics, but there is supposed to be one: when you win, you have won. The ballots are cast, the numbers are counted, and when the final announcement comes, it is over. You celebrate. You begin planning your term. You steel yourself for the battles ahead. Because you made it.

And then, one day later, you didn’t.

For three senators—zhen, Lucas and MrFishsticks—the fall came without warning. They had won. Their names were called, their victories assured. They were to be sworn in, to take their place among the legislators of SimDemocracy, to shape its future. And then, as swiftly as their triumph arrived, it was stripped from them.

No defeat at the hands of another candidate. No surge of last-minute votes. Just ten ballots, erased from existence. Not recounted, not miscounted—eliminated.

And with those ten, the world was rewritten.

Where once they had won, now they had lost. Where once they were senators-elect, now they were ghosts of an election that had never truly been.

And yet, for others, the story ran in reverse.

FLY GUY. Kelvin. Thyme.

Their campaigns had been declared dead, their hopes buried in the final elimination rounds. They had stepped away from the battlefield believing they had lost. And then—resurrection.

Their names reappeared on the list, conjured back into existence not by new votes, not by shifting alliances, but by the unrelenting will of electoral justice. In the blink of an eye, they went from forgotten candidates to senators of SimDemocracy.

Imagine that moment. Imagine sitting in defeat, knowing the election has passed you by, only to wake up and discover you were a senator after all. Not because you fought your way back, not because your campaign found new life, but because fate itself had changed its mind.

And as if this were not enough, the Senate itself collapsed in the process.

Votes had already been cast. Bills had already been introduced. Decisions had already been made by a Senate that—as it turned out—was never the Senate at all. Every law debated, every motion passed, was the work of a legislature that no longer existed. Time itself had been undone.

And now, as the real 134th Senate takes its seats, what lesson are we left with?

That winning is not the end. That victory is not real until the system deems it real. That no senator can take their seat without first proving their election can survive the audit, the scrutiny, the test of forces unseen.

The 134th elections will not be remembered for who won or lost. They will be remembered for the sheer, brutal reminder that nothing in politics is permanent—not triumph, not defeat, not even the past.

For some, this election was a promise undone. For others, a miracle reborn. But for everyone, it was a warning.

The 134th Senate began its first session not with legislation, but with a fundamental question: who would lead them?The race for Speaker saw two prominent contenders— Stalin and ppatpat—compete for the gavel, with the decision ultimately hinging on a question of experience versus availability.

For some Senators, Stalin represented continuity, someone with the institutional knowledge and a steady hand to lead the chamber. Others, however, leaned toward ppatpat, citing their frequent presence, legal background, and ability to actively engage in Senate affairs.

The election played out not as a fierce ideological battle, but as a strategic weighing of strengths. Even Senator Lucas—who had initially pledged his vote to Stalin—ultimately switched sides, reasoning that ppatpat’s greater availability made them the more pragmatic choice. With a final count of 8-4, ppatpat secured the Speakership. Winning the Speakership was only the first step—next came the selection of a Deputy Speaker. In a move that may have surprised a few onlookers, ppatpat appointed Stalin as their Deputy Speaker. Rather than sidelining a former rival, ppatpat embraced the strengths Stalin brought to the table, prioritizing competence over political maneuvering. It was a savvy appointment that reassured both supporters of change and those who valued experience and continuity.

A Confirmation Hearing That Set the Tone for the Senate

With the Speakership settled, the Senate moved on to its next major task: confirming Anti-Syndicality as Secretary of Activity. What should have been a standard hearing quickly turned into a rigorous test of the nominee’s qualifications, work history, and ability to lead a struggling department. Although they are a nominee with big ideas, the Senate's demands appeared to be bigger.

Anti-Syndicality came prepared, presenting a clear vision for revitalizing community engagement:

Minecraft tournaments, writing contests, and art competitions to promote activity.

Stronger coordination with the State Department to bring in new members.

A full reorganization of the Department of Activity, ensuring better planning and execution of events.

While these ideas were met with interest and optimism, some Senators—particularly Senator Lucas—demanded more than just a vision.

Lucas quickly set the tone for a new era of scrutiny, making it clear that no nominee would be confirmed without proving they were the right person for the job. His questioning focused on:

Whether Anti-Syndicality had actually worked in the Department of Activity before.

Whether they had completed the tasks assigned to them.

Whether they could dedicate the necessary time to the position.

The nominee initially stated they had not been paid for weeks, but Lucas quickly verified a recent payment, prompting a clarification from Anti-Syndicality. The nominee acknowledged the oversight, attributing it to poor record-keeping within the department—a problem they vowed to fix.

This led to a broader debate over responsibility:

Anti-Syndicality argued that their responsibilities were never clearly assigned and that the department was in disarray.

Lucas countered with evidence that tasks had been assigned, questioning whether the nominee had simply neglected them.

A Senate That Means Business

The first day of the 134th Senate was anything but ceremonial. The Speakership election tested strategic thinking and priorities, while the confirmation hearing signaled a new era of legislative scrutiny.

ppatpat’s victory and appointment of Stalin as Deputy Speaker ensured that both new leadership and experienced hands were part of the Senate’s direction. Meanwhile, Lucas’s rigorous questioning made it clear that nominees would need to prove their competence, not just their ambition.

Ladies and gentlemen, observers of the great democratic experiment that is SimDemocracy, welcome to another riveting installment of political Darwinism—where ideals clash, coalitions shift, and, as always, someone leaves disappointed. With the dust now settled on the 134th Senatorial Elections, one cannot help but reflect on the stark contrasts—and eerie similarities—to its predecessor just two weeks ago. What does this latest exercise in democracy tell us about SimDem’s ever-shifting political tides? With twelve seats up for grabs and a roster of candidates spanning the political spectrum, the electorate was once again confronted with a fundamental question: what kind of government do we actually want? And just as importantly, do we even vote with that in mind? The Numbers Tell a Story—And That Story Is Change A glance at the cold, hard arithmetic reveals a crucial development: the Senate has shrunk. From the 133rd to the 134th election, the number of seats available dipped from 13 to 12, reflecting a slight drop in voter turnout. Whether this is due to voter fatigue, political disengagement, or simply an overabundance of election drama remains to be seen, but what is certain is that each seat in this election carried even more weight. The formula may be rigid, but the political consequences of a single seat’s disappearance are anything but. The Power of the Incumbent and the Party Machine

Once again, the New People’s Party demonstrated its ability to rally support and secure victories early. mypenjustbroke, already an established force, secured a seat in Round 2—an unambiguous display of the NPP’s continued dominance. Eternal Speaker Stalin, another NPP stalwart, followed in Round 21. If this election proved anything, it was that party infrastructure matters. Even amidst the shifting coalitions and ideological battles, the NPP remains one of the most formidable forces in SimDemocracy.

Elsewhere, ppatpat of The Centre won reelection in Round 19, securing his position as one of the few non-socialist, non-populist voices in the chamber. The Centre, while not boasting the numerical power of the NPP, has proven its ability to maintain relevance through strategic positioning and electoral resilience. The real story here is that of the left-wing factions. The United Socialist League (USL), the SimDem Communist Party, and their allies faced mixed fortunes. However, the USL's performance was less decisive than in the last election, with a few of its hopefuls eliminated along the way. In a chamber increasingly defined by factional maneuvering, the left remains divided—not just between moderates and radicals, but between distinct camps with differing priorities. The PUP Question: Political Resilience or Temporary Aberration?

Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising result of all was the election of zhennyzhenzhen of the Proletarian Unity Party (PUP). For a party that recently faced intense scrutiny and legal challenges, this is nothing short of a Lazarus moment. Political analysts, policymakers, and courtroom spectators alike will be keen to see how this plays out—does this represent a true political resurgence, or merely a final grasp at relevance before the legal hammer falls? Time, and the judiciary, will tell. The Shifting Tides of SimDemocracy

The 133rd elections were a bloodbath for independents—only one managed to win a seat, despite their early dominance in sheer numbers. By contrast, the 134th saw an interesting rebound: three independents clinched Senate seats. This suggests either a stronger independent showing, strategic voting shifts, or simply the chaotic unpredictability of a preferential voting system.

However, the plight of independents remains precarious. Many were eliminated in both cycles, often in the early rounds, reflecting the organizational disadvantage of running without party machinery. The Senate remains an institution where party-backed candidates tend to outlast their solo-running peers. The Return of the Fallen

One of the more amusing narratives is the return of YesSenatorDebiL, who was eliminated in 133 but emerged victorious in 134. This suggests either a reinvigorated campaign effort, a reallocation of second-choice votes, or simply a quirk of a ranked system. Likewise, BTernaryTau flipped their fate—eliminated in 133, elected in 134. The Big Picture What, then, should we take away from this election? Is SimDemocracy a land of sweeping ideological shifts or simply a place where the political pendulum never stops swinging? The answer, perhaps frustratingly, is both. While major shifts in party strength and individual fortunes are evident, the underlying forces that govern these elections remain unchanged: name recognition, coalition dynamics, and, let’s be honest, meme power.

For every incumbent who comfortably retained their seat, there was another who miscalculated their support. For every rising star who broke through, another promising candidate found themselves unceremoniously discarded. SimDemocracy is not a place for the complacent, nor the overly confident. Victory today does not guarantee victory tomorrow, and for those who fell short this time, there is always another election—another chance to rewrite their political fate.

As the Senate convenes with its new members, one thing is certain: the great game of SimDemocracy never stops. The wheel turns, the ballots are cast, and as always, the people—flawed, fickle, fantastic—decide who rises and who falls.

By ppatpat (u/Ramiorebokhara)

Democracy, as the philosophers tell us, is not for the faint of heart. It is loud, it is unpredictable, and in the case of SimDemocracy’s latest Senate election, it is a bit of a circus. But this is a circus that, for all its absurdities, still managed to produce a Senate—one that will now have to put aside the theatrics of the campaign and begin the serious business of governing.

The Results

After 18 rounds of eliminations, strategic vote transfers, and a few heartbreaks, SimDemocracy has its newest Senate. The victors? A mix of revolutionaries, reformers, and pragmatists, with enough ideological diversity to make even the most seasoned political observer do a double-take. zhennyzhenzhen of the Proletarian Unity Party takes a seat, marking the presence of radical leftism in the chamber. mypenjustbroke and Eternal Speaker Stalin from the New People’s Party proved that their brand of left-wing populism still holds weight. The ever-present force of centrism remains strong with ppatpat of The Centre securing re-election. The Lemon Party finds its footing once again with Olive, while the United Socialist League, the SimDem National Party, and the Communists all get representation.

Yet, the road to these results was neither easy nor particularly dignified. The elections were a trial by fire, with candidates dropping one by one—some with grace, others with the kind of bewildered resignation one expects from a contestant eliminated too soon on a reality show.

The Eliminations

It took three rounds before anyone was eliminated. Three. For a brief moment, it seemed as if this would be an election where no one ever left the stage, a never-ending standoff where all candidates simply refused to concede their fate. But the axe did eventually fall. Independent after independent took their bow, proving once again that a solo campaign in SimDemocracy is akin to playing chess with no queen—technically possible, but strategically unwise.

Some eliminations were inevitable. Others were cruelly poetic. Samperor Sam, long known for running and promptly losing, met his usual fate. pt4o, infamous for wielding a certain historical flag, learned the hard way that not all symbols inspire comebacks. The communists and socialists, meanwhile, found their numbers dwindling as the rounds progressed, their revolutionary fervor no match for the slow grind of electoral arithmetic.

By Round 19, the election’s great survivor, ppatpat, secured re-election, defying every moment of doubt and cementing his role as one of SimDemocracy’s most resilient legislators. One round later, Kelvin Hivemind was shown the door, proving that sometimes, self-doubt is a very healthy instinct.

And then, in Round 22, the final name was called. The last hopeful was struck down, and the new Senate was complete.

What Does This Election Say About SimDemocracy?

Elections in SimDem are rarely just about picking lawmakers. They are, in their own way, a grand referendum on the state of the community—what it values, what it rejects, and how it envisions its future.

This election, in particular, showed that party loyalty remains king. Independents were among the first to be cut down, with only two surviving to the final Senate. The voters, it seems, still trust institutions over individuals, a reality that should give pause to any would-be maverick considering a future run.

It also reaffirmed that the extremes still have a voice—but only to a point. The most radical candidates met their fate well before the final rounds, showing that while SimDemocracy entertains the rhetoric of revolution, it ultimately prefers stability. The Proletarian Unity Party may have secured a seat, but the broader election results suggest that most voters are still wary of full-scale upheaval.

And then, of course, there is the sheer theatricality of it all. The election was not just a contest; it was a performance. The commentary from election officials ranged from snide to celebratory, turning every elimination into a moment of public spectacle. Candidates didn’t just lose—they were ejected from the stage with dramatic flourish, their exits punctuated by knowing quips and ironic self-awareness.

If there was ever any doubt that SimDemocracy’s legal and political institutions were careening toward a dramatic reckoning, that doubt has now been put to rest. In a move that will either be remembered as a necessary defense of law and order or a harbinger of judicial overreach, the Department of Justice, under the authority of Attorney General Creative, has secured an Emergency Counter-Terrorism Powers Order (ECTPO) against the Proletarian Unity Party (PUP), effectively sanctioning a mass purge of its members. The justification? A litany of criminal allegations, ranging from conspiracy and treason to the rather grave accusations of doxxing, brigading, and hate speech—a legal hit list that reads like a greatest-hits compilation of modern digital subversion. And yet, despite the severity of these charges, the DOJ remains coy on the specifics, citing “strict classification” of the investigation’s findings. Now, we must ask: Is this the proper administration of justice, or is it an exercise in unchecked state power? Threats? Or Scapegoats?

The PUP—SimDemocracy’s self-proclaimed vanguard of revolution, champions of class struggle, and, if the DOJ’s findings are to be believed, an alleged den of criminals. The irony is almost poetic: a party that has long decried the Senate as a tool of capitalist oppression now finds itself quite literally at the mercy of the system it sought to dismantle.

Let’s not be naive. PUP has never been a model of law-abiding civility. Their rhetoric has always skated the thin line between impassioned advocacy and outright incitement. But treason? Brigading? Doxxing? If the DOJ is to be believed, this was no mere exercise in digital rabble-rousing—this was a full-scale assault on the integrity of SimDemocracy itself.

But we cannot, in good conscience, ignore the counterargument: that this action is less about protecting SimDemocracy and more about ensuring that a troublesome political faction is silenced before it can gain further traction. After all, there is no revolution if its leaders have been erased from existence before it begins.

The Letter of the Law, The Spirit of the Law, and its Application

The Department of Justice, in its recent invocation of the CTSA, claims to have followed proper procedure in securing an Emergency Counter-Terrorism Powers Order (ECTPO). The order allows for bans without requiring individual certification, provided the banned users meet one of two criteria:

They must have fewer than 100 total posts on the SimDemocracy Discord prior to the alleged acts of terrorism.

They must have joined the server less than two weeks prior to the acts in question. The heart of the debate is whether the banned users met the statutory requirements for appeal. Attorney Ferris has argued that the DoJ’s position is legally indefensible, pointing to Article 7, §5.1, which states that if a user has either fewer than 100 posts or has joined less than two weeks ago, they qualify for an appeal. According to Ferris, all of the banned users met at least one of these conditions, thus satisfying the legal threshold for appeal. Syndicality, a key player in the debate, has advanced the argument that the explanatory notes of the law indicate that the spirit of the CTSA was to prevent new, low-engagement users from using appeals to clog the courts. However, the explanatory notes, while informative, are not legally binding. The actual statutory text is what governs—and the statutory text does not say what Syndicality wants it to say.

The relevant portion of the CTSA states that only users who meet certain message and join-date requirements may appeal bans under an ECTPO. The dispute arises over whether the requirements are conjunctive (both must be met) or disjunctive (either one is sufficient). Syndicality argues that the intent of the law was to prevent all but the newest, most inactive users from appealing, and that a strict textualist reading leads to “nonsensical” results.

But this is where textualists and purposivists part ways. Textualists would argue that the statute plainly states that the requirements are alternatives—meaning that if a user meets either the message or join-date requirement, they may appeal. This aligns with Ferris’s counterargument that the PUP members in question met the join-date requirement, even if they did not meet the message threshold. Under a strict reading, their appeals should be valid. Votes, Validity, and Volatility Do Banned Voters’ SUITs Remain Valid? The first question on the docket is whether the SUITs belonging to banned PUP members remain valid. The Act does not provide explicit guidance on this point, but it does establish that voter registration is conducted through a SUIT, and that fraudulent registrations—such as duplicate accounts—must be struck from the rolls. However, it does not say whether a legitimate voter, later banned under an entirely separate legal framework, should have their SUIT revoked retroactively. The Electoral Commission, therefore, finds itself in the awkward position of deciding whether a ban under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA) should nullify a voter’s status under the Voter Rights Act. If the Commission determines that banned members are ineligible, it must move to strike their votes. If not, their ballots must stand. But if a SUIT remains valid despite a ban, what is the purpose of revoking fraudulent voter registrations in the first place? The law is internally contradictory, and this is the kind of legislative muddle that creates permanent political instability. Are Banned Candidates struck from the Ballot? The second question—whether a banned PUP candidate should be removed from the ballot—reveals an even deeper flaw in SimDemocracy’s electoral governance. Here, the issue is whether a candidate’s eligibility for office should be tied to their ongoing legal status in the community. The Voter Rights Act does not directly address this, but it does mandate the Electoral Commission to conduct audits and safeguard election integrity. One could argue that allowing a banned individual to remain on the ballot invites constitutional chaos.

Yet, here we arrive at a fundamental contradiction: If the courts later determine that the ban was unlawful or unfounded, the candidate will have been unfairly excluded from the democratic process. On the other hand, if a banned individual is elected but remains unable to serve, the electoral process itself becomes a farce, leading to unnecessary by-elections and further disorder.

The Crises of our Time

These are not crises of terrorism or security. Firstly, we have a crisis of governance. A crisis where ambiguous laws, written with the best of intentions, have created a system where political factions argue not about the merits of policy but about the technicalities of who is even allowed to participate.

With a new Senate coming in soon, it’s time for some well-earned reflection on my colleagues—both those I’ve worked alongside before and those I’m looking forward to engaging with this time around. Some senators leave a mark through sheer legislative brilliance, others through compelling debate, and a select few through their ability to make the job feel a little less like dragging a boulder up a hill. Here’s my definitive (and entirely subjective) ranking of my favorite colleagues from the previous term.

1. mypenjustbroke (NPP)

No surprises here. mypen has proven to be one of the sharpest legal minds in SimDemocracy, with an ability to write precise, impactful legislation that balances idealism with practicality. Whether it was the CAA, or countless other reforms, he’s been at the forefront of making SimDem more transparent and accountable. Working with mypen wasn’t just a pleasure—it was productive.

2. AI Philosophy (SPQR)

Say what you will about AI Philosophy, but there’s no denying that his unique perspective on law and governance adds something fresh to the Senate floor. His commitment to constitutionalism and legal philosophy makes for some of the most interesting discussions, and whether you agree with him or not, you know you’re getting an argument backed by rigorous thought and deep historical precedent.

3. eleanorsilly (QQQ)

Eleanor is, simply put, a force of nature. She brings unwavering passion to every debate, and whether she’s defending minority rights, championing progressive policy, or making sure no debate goes unchallenged, you can always count on her to show up and fight for her beliefs. She’s one of the best debaters in the Senate, and her presence makes every session more dynamic and engaging.

4. Fake President Niko (Formerly of The Centre)

A solid senator and a great political operator. Niko is one of the most reliable voices for good governance and measured reform, someone who knows how to balance institutional stability with a willingness to push for meaningful change. He’s pragmatic, he’s effective, and most importantly—he gets things done.

5. Muggy (Independent)

Muggy is one of the most grounded senators in the chamber, a rare figure who balances political strategy with knowing when to have fun. She's certainly done well deputizing in lieu of the Speaker, and I'm glad to have spent my time in the Senate with her. There’s a lot to appreciate about someone who focuses on substance over theatrics.

6. Lucas (SCP)

If I had to sum up Lucas in a phrase, it would be "a revolutionary firebrand in the truest sense". Lucas is extremely radical, hard to work with, and often entrenched in his positions. But at the same time, I can’t deny that our debates have been some of the most vicious, challenging, and intellectually stimulating ones I’ve had in the Senate. We may clash frequently, but iron sharpens iron, and I respect his consistency.

7. Aerospace Enjoyer (Lemon Party)

Aero is a pragmatist with a no-nonsense approach, someone who doesn’t get caught up in partisan drama but still makes his stance known. He’s one of the more level-headed members of the Senate, and his willingness to engage with different factions without falling into political traps is admirable. A solid senator and a good presence in the chamber.

8. Comrade Dylan (SCP)

Dylan is one of those senators whose heart is always in the right place. While I may not agree with them on everything, they're committed to their principles, and you know where they stand at all times. That kind of consistency is rare, and it makes for a much stronger Senate when you have members who genuinely believe in what they’re fighting for.

9. Eternal Speaker Stalin (NPP)

There’s something to be said about a senator who knows how to push an agenda effectively, and Stalin—despite the name—brings a level of discipline and focus to the NPP’s operations. While I personally have some gripes with a few lapses in Senate procedure, it’s undeniable that he’s one of the most effective operators in the chamber.

10. Kelvin (FBP)

An interesting figure, to say the least. Kelvin represents a unique blend of principled positions and being quiet in debate, which, while not always constructive, certainly makes for some of the most entertaining moments in the Senate.

11. 🅜🅔🅗 (SDNP)

A bit of a wildcard. At times, MEH has moments of clarity and effectiveness, but at others, they're quiet and miss a few debates where I miss their presence.

12. Cheezcake (Lemon Party)

By ppatpat (u/Ramiorebokhara)

Democracy, in its purest form, is an exercise in deliberation. It is the noble idea that an informed electorate carefully considers policies, weighs the merits of competing legislative agendas, and ultimately casts its vote in the solemn pursuit of good governance. At least, that’s the fantasy we tell ourselves.

But let’s step away from the lofty ideals for a moment and ask the uncomfortable question: Do voters in SimDem actually care about policy? Do they read platforms, compare tax plans, scrutinize foreign policy stances? Or do they simply skim headlines, latch onto slogans, and vote based on who has the best Discord presence? Candidates should be evaluated based on the strength of their proposals and not on which bloc they belong to. Party affiliation should never matter more than principles, and votes should be decided by policy, and not by who wears which label. A good idea is dead on arrival if it comes from the wrong side. A bad idea can thrive if it is protected by party backing.

The Tyranny of the Soundbite

A candidate’s platform should be the bedrock of their campaign. Now, we live in an era where a single out-of-context quote can tank a candidacy faster than an entire economic proposal can be read. The currency of politics in SimDem is engagement, not expertise—the ability to amass likes, stir up controversy, and project an image of leadership, regardless of what policies (if any) are actually being proposed.

This is not to say that every voter is uninformed. There are those who do their due diligence, who read the bills, attend the debates, and engage in serious policy discussions. But they are outnumbered. And in a system where votes are cast by the many, the weight of the few who care about governance is drowned out by the many who simply vote for their friends, their coalition, or whoever happened to make the best impression that week.

The Illusion of Choice?

This brings us to the broader, more disquieting question: Is SimDem truly a democracy in the way we like to think of it, or is it an elaborate exercise in social momentum? If policy is secondary to personality, if voter blocs are more powerful than individual reasoning, then elections become less about governance and more about a game of social influence. The policies that actually get enacted are not necessarily those that are best for SimDem, but those that happen to be backed by the most popular people at any given moment.

There is a dark irony here. Those who complain about elitism and unelected bureaucrats controlling SimDem would do well to consider that a disengaged electorate is precisely what enables power to concentrate among those who manipulate the system best. If policy is not what drives elections, then governance is not dictated by the people—it is dictated by those who know how to control the people.

Where Do We Go from Here?

If SimDemocracy is to be more than a glorified club election, we must confront these hard truths. Candidates must fight against the urge to campaign in slogans alone, and voters must demand more from their elected officials than vague platitudes and coalition endorsements.