Alliance of Liberals, Progressives, and Socialists (ALPS) 1948 GE thread

[JWHart]

Well, as it turned out, the right wing is splitting up even worse, so I guess all's well?

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I'll have no part in this blatant attempt to turn Atlamerica into a one-party state.

The Socialist Party needs to die in the TL, if only to put an end to this abomination.

Why? Can't respect the fact that the majority of people hold views that aren't yours?

I just don't want a one party state

How are the Socialists vs. the Democrats vs. the Republicans a one-party state? As Sewer said, if the Socialists go, they'll all vote Democratic and that'll be a one-party state for sure.

Isn't that what you're trying to accomplish here?

No, I support the three-party state. I'm not sure what this is about; I just don't want the extra Progressive ticket (though I guess that's been settled).

This is about your flagrant attempts to unite the left behind one candidate. The OP makes it clear that this isn't intended to be a one-off thing- it is intended to secure a perpetual left-wing dynasty in the White House. As the left outnumbers the right, you would be creating a de facto one-party state, with the ALPS being the dominant party. The fact that they would have token opposition would not make it any less of a one-party state than places like Zimbabwe or Burkina Faso.

[LastVoter]

I'll have no part in this blatant attempt to turn Atlamerica into a one-party state.

The Socialist Party needs to die in the TL, if only to put an end to this abomination.

Why? Can't respect the fact that the majority of people hold views that aren't yours?

I just don't want a one party state

How are the Socialists vs. the Democrats vs. the Republicans a one-party state? As Sewer said, if the Socialists go, they'll all vote Democratic and that'll be a one-party state for sure.

Isn't that what you're trying to accomplish here?

No, I support the three-party state. I'm not sure what this is about; I just don't want the extra Progressive ticket (though I guess that's been settled).

This is about your flagrant attempts to unite the left behind one candidate. The OP makes it clear that this isn't intended to be a one-off thing- it is intended to secure a perpetual left-wing dynasty in the White House. As the left outnumbers the right, you would be creating a de facto one-party state, with the ALPS being the dominant party. The fact that they would have token opposition would not make it any less of a one-party state than places like Zimbabwe or Burkina Faso.

We gave people a chance to create an anti-socialist party. The two parties would be at near parity. I guess you can enjoy your one party democratic state, unless we get Thurmond elected, but at that point i'd urge all citizens engage in blac bloc actions.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'll have no part in this blatant attempt to turn Atlamerica into a one-party state.

The Socialist Party needs to die in the TL, if only to put an end to this abomination.

Why? Can't respect the fact that the majority of people hold views that aren't yours?

I just don't want a one party state

How are the Socialists vs. the Democrats vs. the Republicans a one-party state? As Sewer said, if the Socialists go, they'll all vote Democratic and that'll be a one-party state for sure.

Isn't that what you're trying to accomplish here?

No, I support the three-party state. I'm not sure what this is about; I just don't want the extra Progressive ticket (though I guess that's been settled).

This is about your flagrant attempts to unite the left behind one candidate. The OP makes it clear that this isn't intended to be a one-off thing- it is intended to secure a perpetual left-wing dynasty in the White House. As the left outnumbers the right, you would be creating a de facto one-party state, with the ALPS being the dominant party. The fact that they would have token opposition would not make it any less of a one-party state than places like Zimbabwe or Burkina Faso.

And what's wrong with the party that is in the majority ruling?

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I'll have no part in this blatant attempt to turn Atlamerica into a one-party state.

The Socialist Party needs to die in the TL, if only to put an end to this abomination.

Why? Can't respect the fact that the majority of people hold views that aren't yours?

I just don't want a one party state

How are the Socialists vs. the Democrats vs. the Republicans a one-party state? As Sewer said, if the Socialists go, they'll all vote Democratic and that'll be a one-party state for sure.

Isn't that what you're trying to accomplish here?

No, I support the three-party state. I'm not sure what this is about; I just don't want the extra Progressive ticket (though I guess that's been settled).

This is about your flagrant attempts to unite the left behind one candidate. The OP makes it clear that this isn't intended to be a one-off thing- it is intended to secure a perpetual left-wing dynasty in the White House. As the left outnumbers the right, you would be creating a de facto one-party state, with the ALPS being the dominant party. The fact that they would have token opposition would not make it any less of a one-party state than places like Zimbabwe or Burkina Faso.

And what's wrong with the party that is in the majority ruling?

I am of the opinion that elections in this game should be more unpredictable. Knowing who's going to win in advance is no fun. Winning the ALPS primary should not be tantamount to election. Otherwise, why should the rest of us participate at all?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Vazdul, this is not something we want to make permanent for every election. This association is for a very narrow purpose: preventing a pointless vote split between two ideologically identical candidate who would never under a realistic scenario run against each other.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Vazdul, this is not something we want to make permanent for every election. This association is for a very narrow purpose: preventing a pointless vote split between two ideologically identical candidate who would never under a realistic scenario run against each other.

The OP clearly seems to think otherwise, Tony:

This is the first of what I hope to be a few strategic threads to unite liberals, progressives, and socialists on the board behind a common candidate in the 1948 general election and beyond.

First of a few. 1948 and beyond. Not a one-off thing.

[Goldwater]

Vazdul, this is not something we want to make permanent for every election. This association is for a very narrow purpose: preventing a pointless vote split between two ideologically identical candidate who would never under a realistic scenario run against each other.

Then why is Truman here?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Vazdul, this is not something we want to make permanent for every election. This association is for a very narrow purpose: preventing a pointless vote split between two ideologically identical candidate who would never under a realistic scenario run against each other.

Then why is Truman here?

That was TNF's idea. We're not TNF: we (at least I) support a Truman candidacy. We're just calling for a logical arrangement of candidates: Sinclair and Wallace wouldn't be against each other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Vazdul, this is not something we want to make permanent for every election. This association is for a very narrow purpose: preventing a pointless vote split between two ideologically identical candidate who would never under a realistic scenario run against each other.

Then why is Truman here?

That was TNF's idea. We're not TNF: we (at least I) support a Truman candidacy. We're just calling for a logical arrangement of candidates: Sinclair and Wallace wouldn't be against each other.

Same here. I just want logical consistency. A Truman candidacy makes perfect sense in this context, but having both Sinclair and Wallace on the ballot definitely doesn't.