I know it's stubborn, but if I become HagridOfTheDeep (IB-SC), I have left the Whigs. SJoyce, you know I love the IB... But I joined the Whigs because that's where I felt I belonged, and I don't want that to change. And other than the membership swaps, I don't really see what this proposition would actually do. TJ and clarence didn't always vote the same, so obviously caucusing together wouldn't really matter; and endorsements don't really matter much either, because people will support who they're going to support. Mechaman didn't vote for any Whig whatsoever!
So to me, this proposition basically reaffirms the status quo with the exception of forcing me to join another party.
For the record, it was nothing personal. I just had to preference the two joke candidates and SJoyce (since I'm a party hack who takes his marching orders explicitly from the Kremlin, err I mean the Imperial House). By the time I got to my fifth preference any vote I gave any of you guys would've been non-existent (hell, do they even count votes past fifth preference?).
That, and admittedly there were a lot of kickass candidates to support. Something that, sadly, would've affected my voting choices
.
With that said, I do agree with Hagrid's conclusions (though I am not a Whig, and probably won't ever consider myself one. Sorry guys
). If there is an election that all of us feel is important enough to rally behind a common ticket, we will do so. It shouldn't be something enforced by party structure. That is the beauty of Atlasia that we don't see in American politics: parties working together to achieve a common goal.
I voted for the Clarence/Yelnoc ticket last presidential election. I voted for ZuWo/Jbrase. Those were worthy tickets and I would probably hesitate to support another Whig Presidential candidate, but (like last time) if the candidate gives sufficient reason to support them I will! As I would expect a lot of other IB members to do.
You fine principled folks shouldn't have to change for anyone
