Temporary Headquarters of the Labor Party (Leadership election)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Here's the situation, folks: we need nine active representatives for the people in Congress, and we need them now. The search for a candidate to fill this vacancy has already taken far too long. To allow this seat to remain vacant for days and possibly weeks on end while the National Committee pursues a permanent replacement would be an abdication of responsibility and a disservice to the Atlasian people. It is for this reason — and this reason alone — that I have consented to assume this seat as an interim measure only. I have no wish to remain in Congress; if I did, I had ample opportunity to run for (and win) this seat in August. Instead, I will serve only until a permanent replacement will be found, whereupon I will immediately resign to allow their nomination.

As for the constitutionality of this appointment: Article VIII states very explicitly that no person may be elected to more than one office, while at the same time giving sanction to the appointment of elected officials to second and third offices. It is this provision that allowed Peebs to assume leadership of the Census Bureau while still a member of the Chamber of Delegates, and that has allowed myself to serve both as Attorney General and as prime minister.

I will admit this is an irregular move, but it is the best choice for the Atlasian people and is in compliance with the terms and spirit of the Constitution.

This is gonna end badly.

Things have been rather too tame lately, don't you think? Makes me miss the good old days of 2015 when I was regularly accused of being a power-hungry communist.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Lay off him, guys; you've made your point.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think that at any point Labor could have been saved. It is no harder to save Labor than it is to create a new party from scratch. I have twice proved the correctness of this, both with the RPP in early 2010 and the Feds in early 2015.

Perhaps on paper—but without airing too much dirty laundry, the internal situation within Labor over the last year had become, in a word, dysfunctional; and from the leadership's perspective, it increasingly felt like a remake of the Little Red Hen where nobody wants to bake, but everyone has some complaint to make about the bread. We'd call a cooks' meeting to try and work out the recipe, only to have someone come forward with a gluten allergy they'd never told anyone about before and storm over to the soup kitchen across the street, where they'd join the crowd of onlookers grousing about how the bakery is trying to poison their clientele. The end result, of course, is that all of your bakers eventually come to loathe their profession and decide to pursue other careers.

What is the moral of this story? I'm not quite sure, except perhaps that one should always assume that everyone is trying to do the good and honest thing rather than rushing to the self-righteous conclusion that you are Jesus and everyone who does not see as you see and act as you wish them to act is a dirty, rotten liar. That's a standard I've fallen short of at times; perhaps our youngest generation of citizens will learn from those mistakes.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Would the argument not be that a new party is being created under the name "Progressive Union", as a combined entity containing both the old "Labor" and "Progressive Union" parties? Due to the fact that Labor is now the new party and the old Progressive Union (should it also vote for this merger) is also now the new party, wouldn't all registrations change to signify that the old parties are now the new PUP, similar to how "Citizens" registrations were automatically changed to "Alliance?

"Equity allows for good faith". Just because Peebs did something under the assumption it as legal, doesn't mean that she intended to break the law, nor does it mean that the law was not broken in that circumstance.

Wait, is the argument then that changing the name of a party from one thing to another (Citizens --> Alliance) constitutes a violation of its members' constitutional rights? Because if so, either the law or the people interpreting it need to be thrown out.

Setting aside whether party mergers are allowable under federal law (which I will admit is an open question, if only because the First Congress was laughably incompetent), I just don't buy the argument that mergers approved by less than 100% of a party's registered members pose an ethical dilemma in relation to citizens' right to freedom of association. Nothing about this vote would prevent anyone from re-establishing "continuity Labor" if they so choose. Nothing, further, prevented them from voting on the question over the 48 hours the poll was open (no, that's not the same thing as awarding votes based on party registration in a general election).

But of course the real question is not whether 24 Atlasians will be forced to join a new party against their will, but whether the Census rolls will be changed to reflect a new reality. The Labor Party is dead. It has been dead for months, for all practical purposes, and the chairman has only just now gotten around to announcing it. The real effect of this vote is to join the leadership and internal infrastructure of the former Labor Party with that of the PUP, as it existed prior to April 5. It would be as if a string ensemble left their former residence to share a space with the orchestra across the street: some out of forgetfulness might continue to arrive at the old space, and the old billboard might still hang above the door, but with the fact of the group moved, the thing which made that space a destination in the first place has gone. Whether this is recognized by the Census Bureau or not, Labor and PUP now exist as a single entity—in all but name. The question, then, is whether the more relevant part of one's registration is the string of letters that come after one's name (which, in the case of "L-a-b-o-r," now signify a nonentity) or the community with which one has chosen to affiliate. Perhaps the law favors the former, but I do think that is a mistake, even as I recognize others may for various reasons voice disagreement with me on that issue.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, so in summary:

It would seem rather terrible for people to be registered under a party affiliation they never agreed to based on the vote of 4 people.

This is fair;

Honestly, this thought process is why the left alienates so many people and why the best thing that could ever happen to the GOP is for the Democrats to have ten years free reign. The Democrats will solve all of the GOP's demographic problems with their condescending, controlling, and alienating attitude on many of their own supporters.

this would be a lot more powerful if it weren't, you know, equally true in reverse.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

More like a party deciding to close and join another.

Wait hold on. So the PUP could just vote to join us and it be so when we never vote to allow that?

That can't be legal.

Everybody in PUP can just re-register as a Fed and it would be legal without the party agreeing to it. So I don't see what's illegal about it.

This is an objectively good idea and PUP should definitely do it.

Sadly, I believe this was outlawed under the RINOTom Memorial Coherent Party Identity Act of 2016.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

More like a party deciding to close and join another.

Wait hold on. So the PUP could just vote to join us and it be so when we never vote to allow that?

That can't be legal.

Everybody in PUP can just re-register as a Fed and it would be legal without the party agreeing to it. So I don't see what's illegal about it.

This is an objectively good idea and PUP should definitely do it.

Sadly, I believe this was outlawed under the RINOTom Memorial Coherent Party Identity Act of 2016.

What is outlawed? Too many people switching registration at once?

(It's a joke about a certain R-IL's distaste for the "parties switched" theory. )