Fantasy Legislature?
Hi there. It's the prodigal Polinaut, returning with an idea I've had that we're trying to figure out whether anyone would be interested in. It's gotten a -- how shall I say this? -- lukewarm reception within the hallowed halls of ye olde public radio network, so in a last-ditch effort to keep it breathing, I'm taking it to the Polinaut community. You decide.
I've been interested for a long time in new ways to explore politics (hopefully, Polinaut's existence is proof of that), and now I'm turning my attention to the Minnesota Legislature. I thought Fantasy Congress was a very novel approach. Don't get me wrong, I think MPR does a fabulous job on legislative coverage, but I think there's more that can be done to encourage people to look beyond the dozen or so lawmakers that usually get the bulk of the coverage, and to provide a venue for more analytical pieces.
Select A Candidate, you may recall, was set up as a way to provide an avenue -- an enticement, if you will -- for people to learn more about candidates, in the guise -- or perhaps disguise of entertainment.
I call it "Fantasy Legislature."
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
Here's the pitch I made to the bosses around here:
What would you think about a fantasy online "game" in which folks assemble a team of legislators prior to the start of the session. Points are assigned for each committee hearing held on a lawmakers bill, points for a floor debate (the bill has to get to the floor) and points for passage in each of the chambers.
The idea here is weekly standings, and "articles" along the lines of what you see in the Strib (and elsewhere) where fantasy "insiders" constantly update players (legislators) you should " buy" or "sell" based on the week they had and the one coming up.
It puts the whole legislative "agenda" -- and analysis -- out there in a different context. It actually moves the legislative coverage into a whole new section and light.
And here are a couple of questions that were e-mailed by them to me, and my answers.
Q: I assemble my team based on our agendas lining up?
A: No, it would work like a regular fantasy baseball or fantasy football league. We'd set a number of "teams" (let's say, 40), 201 legislators so you draft a total of 5 legislators (alternately you could do 20 teams and have a "waiver pool" so teams could drop legislators and pick up a "free agent" during the session (This would actually be cool because if you know someone's bill is coming up for floor debate, you might drop someone off your "roster" and pick him/her up...or try to work a trade.) The "standings" are based on total number of points assembled by each legislator.
Haven't figured out an actual scoring process yet, but just off the top of my head: 1 point for a bill filed, 5 points if the bill gets a hearing, 5 if it passes a committee (a bill could go to several committees), 20 if it reaches the floor 25 if it passes a branch 30 if it passes both houses 40 if it's actually signed into law. Haven't figured out yet what to do with bills that are rolled into omnibus bills.
Waivers would work in reverse order of standings so a team desiring a "free agent" (say the state rep from XXB) would have preference if all the other 'teams' also wanting that "player" are higher in the standings at a given point in time.
Standings owuld be tabulated weekly (I'm actually thinking this would all be done by hand this session via Polinaut but could migrate to a full section). Analysis pieces -- from a Fantasy Legislature perspective -- could generate some interesting political "coverage." Winning team gets lunch with the ACTUAL members of his/her team. Or whatever.
Q: When I pick my team what am I basing my choices on?
A: Your view of the relative liklihood of a legislator to be active and to predict what issues are likely to be "active" in the coming session. Your roster might actually change if you're holding a bunch of legislators known to be "K-12" dominant and it turns out "health care" issues are more abundant.
It actually would be interesting to see what legislators AREN'T drafted.
I also thought about giving points for number of speeches given on a floor. We couldn't track that every day, but we could -- in advance -- set "bonus days," -- days on which if someone on your team addresses the House or Senate, he/she picks up points.
Q: Can it be set up so I can be rewarded if the team I pick advances issues I feel strongly about?
A: Ah, yes, what I call the "Cleveland Indians" syndrome. When I pick fantasy teams, I always pick Cleveland Indians as they are my favorite team. I NEVER win. Not even close.
Where it could get interesting, actually, is the same area it gets interesting in fantasy baseball/football. When a player on your fantasy team, is playing a team you REALLY like. Suddenly, allegiances shift. Could work the same here. Sure, maybe you're in favor of feeding the poor, but maybe a lawmaker on your team thinks quite differently. So he/she files a bill cutting back food shelf assistance.
Now, your values are truly tested. Are you willing to sacrifice your values because of the political expedience of the points of a successfully passed bill? (Sounds like politics to me!) Or do you trade the person to some other team, perhaps run by someone you know to be more philosophically aligned with said legislator, in exchange for someone more aligned with your political philosophy, with the potential to rack up some points.
It actually could be an invigorating exercise, with dyed-in-the-wool DFLers drafting Republicans. And conservative Republicans letting it ride on the most liberal DFLers. It could be the necessary first step toward true bipartisanship.
Q: I'm seeing this as something that would connect with only a limited number of people -- those very close to the political/state legis sphere.
A: Possibly. but can't the same be said for Polinaut and didn't Polinaut end up as
most viewed page on the entire site? (Yes, it did.) Q: I'd love to have some sense of the number of people who would possibly participate. Also, how could the value be spread to non-players? These are factors I see affecting usership: Knowledge base (how much do you need to know to be able to participate. Or is it just random/dumb luck?) Passion base (So you know enough ... do you care enough?) Time commitment (So you know and you care -- do you have time to "play" and how much time per week do you devote?) Interactive base. A: Knowledge base -- It's up to the player. The "early picks" in the draft are likely to be leadership (a mistake, I think, but that's what I would suspect will happen). Folks would submit a draft list ranking the legislators in order of desirability. Each team gets 5. Once they get their team, they can stand pat and just see what happens, or they could tweak their team as many times as they want in recognition that a legislative session is more than just someone who's strong in one area. I'm actually making a change to the scoring system. Rather than total points, the points would reflect "standings" in relation t the othre team in each area. So the team ranked first in bill filings would get 20 points, and the team ranked last would get 1 point. That would be the case in each category. That encourages more analytical opportunities. Early on in the session, you might select lawmakers who file a bunch of bills. Later in the session,you might cut those, and pick up folks who can actually get bills heard in committee. But again, the analysis that goes with that strategy would be a huge addition to our legislative insight. Why are teams cutting or picking up certain lawmakers. Passion base -- Well, this is a non-starter for me. Politics is where it's at for MPR. It always has been; it always will be. Our political offerings have dominated our Web site since i took it on in '99 and I see no reason why that should change. If there's one thing our online audience has proven over and over and over again, it's that they are passionate (and interested first, obviously) in politics. Time commitment -- For the audience or for us? For those who are playing the game, it's as much or as little as they want. for those who are watching, it's no different than the time committment needed to keep up with one of our blogs. You could, theoretically, draft your "team" and then let it ride. Or you could do what fantasy baseball and football players do. Suddenly, you start scouring sources of information -- Hello? Votetracker? -- to try to figure out whether your team is really configured to compete. 4) Interactive base -- You bet they "do" it. Fantasy football has actually changed the GAME of football because so many people do it. Fantasy football actually started with what was then called Rotissiere League baseball. it was started by a guy at Sports Illustrated and some New York city big shots (Fred the Furrier would ring a bill for New Yorkers). they wrote a book and the "sport" took off. * * * So, here we are. Is this something that would appeal to Polinaut readers? Indicate in the comments or send me an e-mail at bcollins@mpr.org, being sure not to put "Hot new stock tip" in the subject heading. If there's little interest, I'll let it die; reserving only the right to say "I told you so" when somebody else steals it and then sells it to Google at an amazing run-up in price.