The Federalist Rift: An Innovative Solution by Prof. Cathcon

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Federalist Rift: An Innovative Solution by Prof. Cathcon

Okay dawgs. I already ran this by Federalist Party Chairman HagridOfTheDeep, who mentioned that there might be various legal issues to deal with here. Nevertheless, I wish to take my case before the people of this great nation and of course of this great party to discuss it.

Gentlemen, I take you to the year 1836 in the United States. The Whig Party, newly formed, sought to prevent the election of Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren. Lacking a complete national identity at the time and trying in vain to halt the Democrats in their tracks, they came up with a pretty novel idea. They ran about four different candidates throughout the country. Dominating the North was General William Henry Harrison, and Daniel Webster ran in Massachusetts. In the South was Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee, I believe, and also some guy in South Carolina. Van Buren would only narrowly defeat Harrison and White in their respective regions and went on to win with a bare majority of the vote. Nevertheless, the Whig plan to throw the election to the House had failed.

I bring you forward to today in Atlasia. The Federalist Party is at a crossroads. Whether it will run with a nominally center/center-right ticket of good standing among the party rank-and-file, or whether oakvale, representing what I guess would be termed the new "liberal Federalists" will take the party forward with what would--ideally--be a winning coalition constituting all of the right, much of the center, and a decent chunk of the left. Doubtless there are some Federalist die-hards that would hate to see the party go down that route, and doubtless there are those that would do anything to see the party win. I have a solution.

In the Pacific, from whence oakvale hails (or hailed) and in the South, where his running-mate Bacon King, the "liberal Federalist" ticket will represent the party. In the Mideast where the Federalists are strongest, Matt's own Northeast, and Maxwell's Midwest, the "true Federalist" ticket will be on the ballot. The ballots will be divided up just as regional senate races are in the voting booths. With this solution, hopefully what can occur is a popular vote victory for all tickets labeled "Federalist". In the ensuing chaos, the Federalist Party recognizes all ballots cast for its tickets as one. Whoever takes up the greater share shall assume the Presidency while naturally cabinet slots will be handed out to the runners up as a sign of good faith and party unity.

Some may call this plan "shady" or "underhanded". I say "Nay!" to them, for they are the voice of the enemy, crawling like a serpent through the Federalist Eden, begging us to take the forbidden fruit known as "allegedly honest campaign tactics".

Naturally meetings can commence between the two tickets as to who gets on the ballot in what region and so on and so forth. The scenario I presented was one of my own imagination. Now, as far as I know, there may be some legal trouble with this, so I beg all masters of the law to come forward and present their cases. Thank you.

Cathcon is an Atlasian writer, politician, and diplomat who is currently serving as the Mideast's Assistant to the Regional Manager.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Addendum

Also, I propose Regional primaries to determine which ticket gets on the ballot and where. I would also like to point out that lawyers were typically seen as scum back in the day, being known as ambulance chasers, so any lawyer that wants to challenge this, know your place.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In other words, it doesn't matter who wins as long as he has an "F" next to his name.

I know that it's easy for the Atlasian right to be marginalized when it demands ideological purity, but I'd be awfully embarrassed if I were a member of a party that had given up even the pretext of a substantive agenda.

For the Right, having a "substantive agenda" on a national scale is tantamount to political suicide, as we've seen time and time again.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If you literally stand for nothing, why even bother? At this point you're just a pan-ideological social club.

Wingnuts and ideologues have long stood in the way of parties building winning coalitions. Abraham Lincoln had to deal with his fair share of issues with the radicals. Nevertheless, he won twice.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Also why is that the left wants to merge all the time? Loose an election? Merge. Win an election? Merge anyway. It is like to many on the left that even reasonably center right people are satan and they must be destroyed.

No surprise.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You know that our party needs to stick together if it ever wants any shot at winning, and coming in here to pretend that it's somehow dishonest isn't fooling anyone. You can't have every vote. Also, you say you'd be embarrassed to come from a party like ours... but get real. The Labor Party is no different in its tactics, and the only reason it might appear so is because you're the one talking substance. That doesn't mean the party has changed. It's especially funny because only four months ago you really wouldn't have fit the Labor mold at all. Yet we're the "pan-ideological social club."

I find it disgraceful that you and so many others from your party are willing to stoop to supporting a last-minute screwball campaign run by a couple of serial quitters just because you think that they might have some chance of winning the election. Do you honestly expect that their party affiliation would mean anything once they were elected? You're being played; I won't shy away from saying so.

I know I don't particularly expect their ideologies to be changed by their party affiliation. At this point, I have a feeling on the right just don't care. To them, anyone without the party label "Federalist" is part of the vast leftist majority, and an election winner will always hail from that vast unknown. At the very least, a Federalist administration, regardless of ideology, can shake sh#t up a bit and not be the same old string of "those other guys that always win every single freakin' time because of the way this game works." There comes a point where it's principled to be unprincipled.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Obviously, it's drenched in your historical buffery Cathcon, I just think it's a bad idea. Being frank, here.

I have never taken criticism lightly, and I don't plan on starting now. This is a grave personal insult, and not one I will forget. It may turn the tide in who I decide to support in the primary.