What next for the Federalist Party?

[Former President tack50]

Obviously the next step for the Federalists is to run PSOL / Haley-Ryan of course. Or SWE / Extreme Republican

Now seriously, this development is certainly worrying.

[Former President tack50]

The main problem is that there is no incentive for any split in Labor. We are winning so why would we even bother?

The party is honestly too united and has clearly "won" Atlasia, whatever that means at this point. Our current victories make the JCP domination from back in the day look like childs play

On hindsight I wish MB had split the party back in February, at least that way we get actual competitive elections; even if it is between MB cultists and "Labor proper".

[Former President tack50]

The real political divide in this country is not between the right and Labor, but between Frémont and the East. This election was an overwhelming victory for the free West, as 98% of voters prefer a Frémonter president. In the next Congress, Frémonters and expatriates will control 9 of 16 seats including the vice presidency. Feds pulled off a major coup in recruiting Frémont patriot Siren to run on their slate, but negated most of her appeal by nominating the secesh border ruffian Muaddib for vice president. They would have done better to endorse the all-Frémonter Pericles/Sestak ticket, turning their 32-point loss into a 70-point victory.

And even with 98% of the vote for Fremonters you still are unable to take over Kansas

[Former President tack50]

On hindsight I wish MB had split the party back in February, at least that way we get actual competitive elections; even if it is between MB cultists and "Labor proper".

I did actually come pretty close to splitting off in January. The Labor convention amendment thing really pissed me off. Didn't happen of course but let's say it did.

So what happens? I'm gonna say Leinad drops out of the ticket and gets replaced by someone more appealing to the right so we basically have a Siren-Muaddib situation 4 months early.

Siren/Muaddib failed so hard for a couple reasons: Siren has been out of the game for a couple years now, so she doesn't have all the connections that are necessary to run a winning campaign. Plus Muaddib has the reputation of being super far right so this alienated some of the left wingers who would have voted for them otherwise.

I, on the other hand, have a bit better grasp on each individual voter. I turn out a solid amount of Labor voters every time... but here's the thing. My core bloc that always votes for me is pretty small compared to the Labor forum zombie army. So maybe I pull over 15-20 or so voters to my side. Sure, great. But Pericles still wins the core Labor vote including the mass of zombies. The right wing mostly votes for me but there are a few defectors (like maybe lfromnj) who aren't too thrilled about running a left winger on the ticket. Plus all the classic swing voters like Winfield and Kingpoleon and Smoltchanov and Andjey still vote for Pericles. I've got no connection with most of them.

I come closer, yeah, but the numbers aren't quite there for me to pull it off. And I doubt this alliance with the right lasts for longer than an election, so where do I end up? Back at square one, probably f**king around and forming another version of the Hoxhaist Party. Maybe I get myself a House seat. Pericles runs again in June and wins in a landslide, maybe I even vote for him cause I'm too burned out to really care. Anyway it ends up not too different from the situation today.

Eh, my point is that on the long term, a Labor splitter would be relatively successful (key word relatively). You'd certainly get enough people to get a House seat for as long as you wanted, so at least House elections should be competitive between 4-4-1 and 5-3-1 for instance; even if you would not really be a swing voter as commonly understood.

February was also when the Dem primaries were in full swing, so running "to the left of Labor" is also a decent enough option.

Do I think you pull it off? No, not really. On paper the Koopa+HCP+Dule votes are enough to get you over the line, but HCP got several Labor leadership votes so I guess you narrowly lose, but it'd still be almost as close as Jun 19; say you lose 53-46 or something. It also depends on who Feds back, since it'd be a true 3 way race; if you finish 3rd I guess Peri still wins like he did.

On the longer term, the "MB cult party" would probably be a bit bigger than LJP currently is, so enough for you to hold a House seat as long as you want, plus maybe elect 1 person in the Southern CoD.

Even having a 3 party system of sorts (with the third party to the left of Labor at least nominally) is better than the status quo.

JCP was at least opposed by a faction of anti-JCP leftists and pre-reset Labor had to compete with TPP and the Liberals; post-reset Labor is not even seeing that outside of PSOL's quixotic campaigns.

[Former President tack50]

The reason why Siren didn't get 40% is because she picked Muadd'ib, and as a result, she lost some of her left wing support. Had she picked somebody like OSR, she would have gotten more then 40%.

You think picking OSR would have given her 11 extra votes?

It is worth noting that Koopa/RC did better than this; and so did Feds in the December and April midterms

So what happened? The Feds have essencially turned back the small bounce they had and are back at rock bottom. Hell, I am pretty sure the left's House result was even better than Oct 19 and that we were closer to 7-2 than to 5-4!

[Former President tack50]

Had you split the party, I would have hunted you down until you and your third party would have been completely destroyed. Your federalist short term allies wouldn't have stood to you and would have tried to destroy you as well because they would have wanted to get their southern senate seats back.

In fairness this is also kind of the reason why Labor is so dominant for better or worse Not the only one, but a reason nontheless

I'd rather have a third party providing some competition than this in a way. Even a cultish third party! (and I hate cults)

[Former President tack50]

That isn't because we have lost ground, IT IS BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE GAINED IT.

We have been in the 60's for our House slate for like 4 straight elections, which would have been enough to win any election for House prior to mid 2018. I think Encke said you guys went from like 85 to 110, 110!!!!!!!!!!

You guys some times focus so much on the percentages that you cannot see for the forest for the trees that is glaringly obvious when you look at the raw vote.

So what? If so then that means that the population of Atlasia has grown (which it has). Honestly under normal circumstances I'd still be blaming you for not recruiting enough.

However, I must admit Atlasia's electorate does not exist on a vacuum. I imagine the new arrivals into Atlas disproportionately lean left.

At this point beating Labor will probably require a party split of some sort, yet I cannot see a split happening.

And also, what Windjammer commented, even if a split somehow happened and even if said split was successful, Labor would probably put more effort into killing said splitter than the right.

I could easily see Labor pushing for a 5-4 over 5-3-1 or even electing a Fed president over the Labor splitter if "Labor proper" came in third somehow lmao (though at that point so much would have changed that Windjammer's comment would be irrelevant, MB could have plausibly come in 2nd, but not replaced the entire party)

[Former President tack50]

That isn't because we have lost ground, IT IS BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE GAINED IT.

We have been in the 60's for our House slate for like 4 straight elections, which would have been enough to win any election for House prior to mid 2018. I think Encke said you guys went from like 85 to 110, 110!!!!!!!!!!

You guys some times focus so much on the percentages that you cannot see for the forest for the trees that is glaringly obvious when you look at the raw vote.

So what? If so then that means that the population of Atlasia has grown (which it has). Honestly under normal circumstances I'd still be blaming you for not recruiting enough.

Grown form almost exclusively left wingers conditioned to desire conservative blood because they despise Trump. Once you scoop them up, it matters little that myself or Siren or any number of others cannot stand Trump either.

Guess the "Smash the Trumpists" PMs came 3 years early

Now seriously, in that you are right. Given Atlas' makeup, Feds need to win at least some leftists (and real ones at that, not just centrists). Whether it is through friendship and cults a la YT, through said leftists preferring the Feds out of spite (like it happened during the JCP era?) or whether it is simply because Labor is seen as too radical or something (like pre-reset).

The problem is of course that irl most Dems have a "vote blue no matter who" attitude and what not. Probably something I cannot relate to since non-American but still.

In any case, it is not like you can't try to recruit those same leftists who are looking for conservative blood Or are the Feds a Trumpist party after all?

To be honest I wonder how a "real" centrist third party would be doing (we have not had one of those since the old Alliance Party; the monties barely count). Atlas actually has a surprising amount of moderate Dems for the internet, so if someone somehow painted Labor as either too conservative, or too liberal, that is a recepe for partial success. Then again that is what PSOL's been trying to do for a while and he is failing miserably.

I guess if the ""problem"" is the growth of Atlasia that could be ""solved"" by putting in place draconian registration and activity requirements though that is a bandaid at best. Or let Peebs put in place the Thanos Act

[Former President tack50]

I will also say S019 has a partial point.

Let's turn the clock way back to when the ACP got formed cause fhtagn thought the Feds were too moderate. If instead of reconciling and becoming a satellite party, the ACP had done the opposite (and the Feds became even more moderate) I would say the right at large would probably be in a better place.

For instance, instead of facing a 6-3 House right now, Feds could have courted moderate Dems and we would have a 5-2-2 House now for instance.

Koopa/RC, instead of being a somewhat incoherent ticket, would have been perfectly defensible. (Siren/Muaddib would have still been completely nuts whether it ends up as a Fed or an ACP ticket)

I think a party split or shakeup of some sort needs to happen. A Labor split is more likely to happen, but a Fed split, if the splitter steals mostly from Labor, could also work. I unironically believe we need a "Conservative Union Party" of some kind, at least that managed to make the left more competitive.

2018 may have been completely crazy, but the left proper did not get any House majorities from Oct 17 (the death of old Labor) to Jun 18 (PUP's peak I suppose). Maybe a CUP would either encourage the Feds to fight for their dear lives, or reenergize the right in some way

[Former President tack50]

Ok, Lumine made a great post, so I guess I will try to analyze it and give some answers.

It is fairly obvious that Labor has a vested interest in staying in power. Like I have always said, "We are winning, why would we give up?". I most definitely lament the current state of Atlasia but Labor's leaders are taking the rational decisions.

The Why we got here? part is very simple to answer. Quite simply, recruitment and game expansion. In part I would accuse Federalists of being incompetent here and not being able to get the moderate Democrats they need in order to win based on ideology; nor the cultish personality based voters they need to win based on friendship.

The federalists have essencially 2 victory that do not count on Labor actively pissing off its own voters.

1) They win enough Democrats (presumably moderate Democrats) to win based on ideology. I cannot think of any recent examples where this happened. If it were to happen, it'd be because Labor runs a borderline communist ticket. Thing is, there isn't really anyone who would pull this off. Maybe if we ran like Pyro/PSOL or something of the sort, but even that would not work.

2) They get enough defections based on friendship or any other sort of grievances people may have with Labor. Considering Pericles is almost the poster child for "Atlasia is serious business", hypothetically someone like YT at his prime could have beaten him.

The other big element, is that the Labor leadership has just been too good at keeping the party united, and I honestly believe it is due to PTSD from older players in a way. We can look at the history of the left in Atlasia and find that pre-reset there were plenty of other forces on the left opposing Labor or JCP even at their peak.

OSR also has a point that the forum at large is now more left wing and especially, more partisan than it was 2 years ago. However we have an 8 page thread on the Forum Community board on that so I will not further develop the point But needless to say, Atlasia's electorate is not a vacuum.

[Former President tack50]

As for solutions, today I introduced a bill in Congress that tied to propose at least one solution: Non partisan elections.

Do I think such a bill will pass? Absolutely not and it might even be counterproductive but still that is one of my contributions

I will also "leak" that in Laborcord we discussed once the possibility of abolishing the House and returning to a larger unicameral chamber though I am not sure whether that makes things easier, harder or is no real change for the right.

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, speaking of connections, I wonder to what extent a "generic zombie voter" reacts to a PM that is not from the party leadership.

Like for Discord and friendship voters sure, the "connection" is easy to understand, if you are friends or get along with somebody, they will probably vote for you.

But how does that work for generic forum voters? (which lets not kid ourselves, are still the vast majority of this game)

[Former President tack50]

At least we can all agree it's good to see discussion about the game back on the election board

Enjoy it while it lasts, while the Fantasy Government boards are still doing business as usual, this board is doing much worse most of the time

Anyway,
Maybe we should dissolve all parties like during JCP/RPP era!

I do think that could help make things more interesting if it leads to a different party system and - ideally - to a large number of parties out there or to shifting dynamics, even if dissolution itself does not solve some of the deeper problems associated with the game. Still, isn't that a bit of a non-starter? I'd love to be wrong, but I lost track of how many times Yankee has expressed his unyielding opposition to dissolution, and I have to imagine other players may think the same given their attachment to certain brands.

Yeah Yankee has essencially said "over my dead body" when prompted with this.

If it was somehow done (whether it is because of Yankee finally surrendering or Congress somehow forcing a dissolution against Yankee's will); that would be the great fear, that we end up returning to the same party system just a couple months later.

I am not sure to what extent that would actually happen, but still it would be likely to happen sooner rather than later

There is also the possibility of Labor dissolving unilaterally (I think that was what JCP originally proposed?) but I guess that would last for even less time, not to mention I doubt anyone in Labor leadership would agree to that.

[Former President tack50]

Also, Re: Yankee unilaterally stopping a hypothetical 2nd dissolution; if the will is there and widespread enough, it will happen; it will instead just be an Act of Congress rather than a mutually agreed thing. (or involve Yankee being knived as Fed leader but that is even more unlikely)

Though I will say I would be very cautions about a 2nd dissolution via Act of Congress unless it:

a) Was mostly bipartisan. So Yankee voting nay is fine, but at least several among Cao, LT, Encke or RC should support it

b) Was ratified in some sort of referendum. There are no precedents for a national referendum, but I think for such a big reform we can make an exception.

Of course, nothing can stop Yankee (or any other prominent Fed or Laborite) from picking up the pieces and reforming the party anyways which would obviously defeat the purpose of the dissolution in the first place.

[Former President tack50]

So the argument is essencially "The party system ended up reforming eventually, so it failed?" I do not really agree with that argument tbh.

I am not deluded and don't think we can keep a multi party system functioning in the long run; certainly not for longer than a year or so.

But still:

1) I will certainly take 1 year of competitive elections over 1 year of boring landslides

2) Even after the Feds formed and the Libs disappeared, elections remained competitive.

Part of the reason is because the far leftists won over the more moderate Liberals (maybe if the Libs won the power struggle, there would have been more landslides in 2013 and 2014). But that is not the entire reason imo. Not to mention third parties being much better off pre-reset than now, despite the more hostile system to third parties on paper (at least for the STV seats, I suppose the old regional seats were easier to win in than the current Senate)

[Former President tack50]

Despite the overwhelming victory, elections are more competitive now. And I tihnk my posts that the solution were third parties and cults have been thoroughly #vindicated.

After all, the newly found competitiveness stems partially, if not fully from a strong third party (DA) plus a literal cult (Ishan-Poirot).