The Public White House: Constitutional Convention at FINAL VOTE!

[Fritz]

Changing our style of government was discussed ad nauseum in last year's ConCon, Teddy.  Ain't gonna happen.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

That brings me back to my original point that people are comfortable with the nation as it is.

On each issue, 55% of people are happy. However, there are so many issues that by the end of it, no one is happy with everything.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vepres, there is longstanding acceptance that Atlasia is more along the line of a European/Canadian political spectrum as opposed to the American one. You can deal with it or not, it's not my problem, but don't try to purport people like PiT or SPC as your charming examples of the poor beleaguered Atlasian right.

As for right-wing legislation, I couldn't care less. You would quibble over the definition of "right wing legislation" if I ever did get examples, anyway.

The only reason I'm responding is to point out the fact that you did a complete dodge of my biggest point, the idea that there is never close calls or rejected legislation in the Senate. It was one of the cruxes of your argument, and it is entirely unfounded. That is all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vepres, there is longstanding acceptance that Atlasia is more along the line of a European/Canadian political spectrum as opposed to the American one. You can deal with it or not, it's not my problem, but don't try to purport people like PiT or SPC as your charming examples of the poor beleaguered Atlasian right.

As for right-wing legislation, I couldn't care less. You would quibble over the definition of "right wing legislation" if I ever did get examples, anyway.

The only reason I'm responding is to point out the fact that you did a complete dodge of my biggest point, the idea that there is never close calls or rejected legislation in the Senate. It was one of the cruxes of your argument, and it is entirely unfounded. That is all.

     Besides, by your definition of the Atlasian right, I'm not part of it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'd also like to point out that, if there's been no serious right-wing legislation, it's because people don't introduce anything. Libertas is no centrist or left-winger, and the two proposals from him that come to mind is an anti-war constitutional Amendment (that I voted for in the referendum), and a bill that taxes big business chains.

And honestly, if you'll excuse me just being blatantly obnoxious and partisan for this one: the right-wing has been defeated in the contest of ideas and debate over and over again. Look at the healthcare thread. If I remember correctly, we fought for nearly or just about 20 pages. That's why we won that bill. We didn't win because everyone was just some sort of social democrat in disguise, we won because we put forth powerful debate backed out by a multitude of sourced arguments. Purple State made it deficit neutral, we argued back and forth over it's effectiveness. It's worked just fine.

The simple fact of the matter is, the only motivation for your opposition is ideological, not factual. Yankee once tried to mount opposition to a small estate tax raise (which I believe was proposed by Afleitch) and I merely pointed out that it hits only a fraction of a percentage point of small enterprises. During the argument on taxes, we didn't win by sitting still, we won those tax rates in the Fiscal Responsibility Act because we stood up to the burden of proof on us and carefully balanced and demonstrated it's fairness and impact. (People can make up to 33k only being taxed at 14%, and the first 8k of income isn't taxes at all!) We won the stimulus because of the constant indepth arguments over it's effectiveness and direction. Yankee and I spent pages having a wonky back and forth!

I see nothing from the right that is that equivalent. Nothing at all. We won the smoking ban, why did we win that smoking ban with a veto-proof majority? Because tough arguments were brought forward by myself and Afleitch that won people over with our demonstrated fact.

As long as the root of your position is simple ideology, you will inherently be less successful.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd also like to point out that, if there's been no serious right-wing legislation, it's because people don't introduce anything. Libertas is no centrist or left-winger, and the two proposals from him that come to mind is an anti-war constitutional Amendment (that I voted for in the referendum), and a bill that taxes big business chains.

And honestly, if you'll excuse me just being blatantly obnoxious and partisan for this one: the right-wing has been defeated in the contest of ideas and debate over and over again. Look at the healthcare thread. If I remember correctly, we fought for nearly or just about 20 pages. That's why we won that bill. We didn't win because everyone was just some sort of social democrat in disguise, we won because we put forth powerful debate backed out by a multitude of sourced arguments. Purple State made it deficit neutral, we argued back and forth over it's effectiveness. It's worked just fine.

The simple fact of the matter is, the only motivation for your opposition is ideological, not factual. Yankee once tried to mount opposition to a small estate tax raise (which I believe was proposed by Afleitch) and I merely pointed out that it hits only a fraction of a percentage point of small enterprises. During the argument on taxes, we didn't win by sitting still, we won those tax rates in the Fiscal Responsibility Act because we stood up to the burden of proof on us and carefully balanced and demonstrated it's fairness and impact. (People can make up to 33k only being taxed at 14%, and the first 8k of income isn't taxes at all!) We won the stimulus because of the constant indepth arguments over it's effectiveness and direction. Yankee and I spent pages having a wonky back and forth!

I see nothing from the right that is that equivalent. Nothing at all. We won the smoking ban, why did we win that smoking ban with a veto-proof majority? Because tough arguments were brought forward by myself and Afleitch that won people over with our demonstrated fact.

As long as the root of your position is simple ideology, you will inherently be less successful.

That is a given, I beleive I made a very compelling arguement in that direction that complete 100% ideological success should be avoided in the game for the sake of self preservation of the game itself.

And beyond that there are many reasons. We can go on and on about problems with how Libertas and the Populares operate and ways in which they could be far more effective from a political strategy and a game play perspective. The problem is that so much criticism has been made (because a certain group ignored my warnings ) That now any criticism of the Populares, even constructive criticism sends chills up the spine of the Populares in a way the word "Crusade" does in the Muslim world. And frankly enough has been said of how the Populares have damaged the game play and such forth that to keep discussing it would be to beat a dead horse. Even so, I belevie I mentioned Libertas and some of his counterproductivity this afternoon in this thread.

I think more attention should be focused and the counterproductivity and "failing with good intentions" people. I think this thread has been very productive in this regard in that it provided the opportunity to say "THis is why PS couldn't turn it around", "This is why some partisanship is necessary" "This is why Game Reform is not end within itself" without having someone yell at your for criticizing a Consitutional Convention or a certain someone hoping "Your new masters treat you well" (You will never escape long term punishment for this ).


Maybe I should just read another Pat Buchanan book and use a phrase from it to rile up, oh damn Al is gone. That plan is out.   

[Purple State]

I'm very happy to see some legitimate discussion about this topic. I can't deny that it has been excruciatingly frustrating to spend over three months in office and see almost no legitimate debate. I could sense it during the election, when no credible opposition rose up, but I had hoped it would pick up again after the summer.

In the end, I tend to agree that the game needs partisan divides to thrive, whether that be right versus left, federalist versus regionalist or registration limits versus open recruitment. Issue-centric debates drive interest and enthusiasm and serves as the impetus for the rise of new parties.

The problem we face now is that the game has lost any ideological coherence and is now purely personality based. The RPP and Populares are not expressly pushing to roll back any statute, despite the general admission that current law in Atlasia is considerably left of center in the United States. The JCP is not based on defending the current laws, but rather on amassing political power. And the most controversial figures in recent Atlasian memory, including DWTL, Hamilton, Ogis, etc. were controversial because of how they acted, not because of what they believed. While these aren't necessarily bad things, it isn't generating excitement by any means and it only turns people away from the game.

Perhaps with the groundwork laid by my administration, there will be an opportunity for renewed debate under a considerably clearer and more efficient system. If that is my single accomplishment I will consider myself a success.

[Dr. Cynic]

Mr. President, whoever wins the next election, can we assume that you will lobby for them to include new ways for current and future Atlasians to remain active? We're all desperate for membership... But what will all those members do when not running for election? Surely we'll get more people with the new ideas and new ways to spurn activity.

[Fritz]

Purple State, I disagree with your characterization of th JCP as being about amassing political power.  That is certainly not true of ME and my candidacy.

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

Andrew experience as Northeast Governor is not giving him enough preparation to be a President in a time we need a complex initiatives and reforms. Will all due respect, both (President and Governor) are executive positions indeed, but we must admit Governor role is limited mostly to Mr. "Sign/Veto/Nothing else to do" role.

Fritz, on the other hand, have a real experience with a federal government. Every day, as RG, he contributed to maintain our system and keeping the game going. You can be sure he'll use the Presidency, all the opportunities the office is providing, to make a difference.

Bluntly speaking, Atlasia is facing to great challenge to give the Presidency to someone not tested at all when it comes to launching a far reaching initiatives and reforms. Sorry, Andrew, we need you much more as a legislator, than a chief executive.

[HappyWarrior]

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

Andrew experience as Northeast Governor is not giving him enough preparation to be a President in a time we need a complex initiatives and reforms. Will all due respect, both (President and Governor) are executive positions indeed, but we must admit Governor role is limited mostly to Mr. "Sign/Veto/Nothing else to do" role.

Fritz, on the other hand, have a real experience with a federal government. Every day, as RG, he contributed to maintain our system and keeping the game going. You can be sure he'll use the Presidency, all the opportunities the office is providing, to make a difference.

Bluntly speaking, Atlasia is facing to great challenge to give the Presidency to someone not tested at all when it comes to launching a far reaching initiatives and reforms. Sorry, Andrew, we need you much more as a legislator, than a chief executive.

You know Andrew is also a former Senator right?  I myself served with him during his service there and he was quite succesful there.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

Andrew experience as Northeast Governor is not giving him enough preparation to be a President in a time we need a complex initiatives and reforms. Will all due respect, both (President and Governor) are executive positions indeed, but we must admit Governor role is limited mostly to Mr. "Sign/Veto/Nothing else to do" role.

Fritz, on the other hand, have a real experience with a federal government. Every day, as RG, he contributed to maintain our system and keeping the game going. You can be sure he'll use the Presidency, all the opportunities the office is providing, to make a difference.

Bluntly speaking, Atlasia is facing to great challenge to give the Presidency to someone not tested at all when it comes to launching a far reaching initiatives and reforms. Sorry, Andrew, we need you much more as a legislator, than a chief executive.

You know Andrew is also a former Senator right?  I myself served with him during his service there and he was quite succesful there.

Of course I know, HW. Still, I see Fritz far best suited, due to his government experience, for the President, esspecially now.

[Vepres]

Vepres, there is longstanding acceptance that Atlasia is more along the line of a European/Canadian political spectrum as opposed to the American one. You can deal with it or not, it's not my problem, but don't try to purport people like PiT or SPC as your charming examples of the poor beleaguered Atlasian right.

As for right-wing legislation, I couldn't care less. You would quibble over the definition of "right wing legislation" if I ever did get examples, anyway.

The only reason I'm responding is to point out the fact that you did a complete dodge of my biggest point, the idea that there is never close calls or rejected legislation in the Senate. It was one of the cruxes of your argument, and it is entirely unfounded. That is all.

I'll admit that there was a period of some three months where I stopped following the Senate, only recently getting reengaged.

[HappyWarrior]

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

Andrew experience as Northeast Governor is not giving him enough preparation to be a President in a time we need a complex initiatives and reforms. Will all due respect, both (President and Governor) are executive positions indeed, but we must admit Governor role is limited mostly to Mr. "Sign/Veto/Nothing else to do" role.

Fritz, on the other hand, have a real experience with a federal government. Every day, as RG, he contributed to maintain our system and keeping the game going. You can be sure he'll use the Presidency, all the opportunities the office is providing, to make a difference.

Bluntly speaking, Atlasia is facing to great challenge to give the Presidency to someone not tested at all when it comes to launching a far reaching initiatives and reforms. Sorry, Andrew, we need you much more as a legislator, than a chief executive.

You know Andrew is also a former Senator right?  I myself served with him during his service there and he was quite succesful there.

Of course I know, HW. Still, I see Fritz far best suited, due to his government experience, for the President, esspecially now.

I was just wondering because you insinuated Andrew does not have any federal government experience.

[Vepres]

I'm very happy to see some legitimate discussion about this topic. I can't deny that it has been excruciatingly frustrating to spend over three months in office and see almost no legitimate debate. I could sense it during the election, when no credible opposition rose up, but I had hoped it would pick up again after the summer.

In the end, I tend to agree that the game needs partisan divides to thrive, whether that be right versus left, federalist versus regionalist or registration limits versus open recruitment. Issue-centric debates drive interest and enthusiasm and serves as the impetus for the rise of new parties.

The problem we face now is that the game has lost any ideological coherence and is now purely personality based. The RPP and Populares are not expressly pushing to roll back any statute, despite the general admission that current law in Atlasia is considerably left of center in the United States. The JCP is not based on defending the current laws, but rather on amassing political power. And the most controversial figures in recent Atlasian memory, including DWTL, Hamilton, Ogis, etc. were controversial because of how they acted, not because of what they believed. While these aren't necessarily bad things, it isn't generating excitement by any means and it only turns people away from the game.

Perhaps with the groundwork laid by my administration, there will be an opportunity for renewed debate under a considerably clearer and more efficient system. If that is my single accomplishment I will consider myself a success.

As I have stated (and Marokai responded with some self described hacker ), the issue is the right can only win on personalities. When we run on an agenda, we have a ceiling of some 45% of the vote, if we're lucky. Unfortunately, I believe Marokai's style (no offense intended), which is espoused by many JCPers to a lesser degree, is exactly why we don't want to roll back the government.

Again, the attitude of "I don't care that no right-wing legislation passes" is very destructive to activity and demoralizing. There are no major ideological shifts or shake-ups to either the left or the right of this center-left box we're in. No matter which individuals win, we are always moving in a center-left direction, and that has not changed at all since I've been here.

We just don't stand a chance, not because "the facts" are against us (as Marokai said), but because the environment is simply too hostile. And Marokai, you can argue against that, but the right almost universally perceives this to be true, and as long as that perception is there, the game will continue to be inactive.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

Andrew experience as Northeast Governor is not giving him enough preparation to be a President in a time we need a complex initiatives and reforms. Will all due respect, both (President and Governor) are executive positions indeed, but we must admit Governor role is limited mostly to Mr. "Sign/Veto/Nothing else to do" role.

Fritz, on the other hand, have a real experience with a federal government. Every day, as RG, he contributed to maintain our system and keeping the game going. You can be sure he'll use the Presidency, all the opportunities the office is providing, to make a difference.

Bluntly speaking, Atlasia is facing to great challenge to give the Presidency to someone not tested at all when it comes to launching a far reaching initiatives and reforms. Sorry, Andrew, we need you much more as a legislator, than a chief executive.

You know Andrew is also a former Senator right?  I myself served with him during his service there and he was quite succesful there.

Of course I know, HW. Still, I see Fritz far best suited, due to his government experience, for the President, esspecially now.

I was just wondering because you insinuated Andrew does not have any federal government experience.

If I wasn't clear enough, I believe it can be said safely Fritz experience in running a federal institution cannot be matched with neither Andrew nor Mike Naso.

[Purple State]

Mr. President, whoever wins the next election, can we assume that you will lobby for them to include new ways for current and future Atlasians to remain active? We're all desperate for membership... But what will all those members do when not running for election? Surely we'll get more people with the new ideas and new ways to spurn activity.

I currently have not decided on my post-presidency plans. I may remain engaged, disengage for a time or simply vanish. Only circumstances will tell.

Purple State, I disagree with your characterization of th JCP as being about amassing political power.  That is certainly not true of ME and my candidacy.

We run not in a quest for power, but out of a sense of duty.  Someone must pick up the ball from Purple State.  We believe that Kalwejt and myself are better choices than Andrew and Duke.

I speak only of the party itself, not its individual members. At the end of the day, the JCP as a political structure does not stand for a concerted agenda on how to move forward, just as the RPP no longer fights fiercely for the cause of regionalism and the Populares hasn't ginned up much anger of late.

Of course, this is all because those issues have all been "solved" in Atlasia at the present moment. The game's status quo is a social democracy, most of us accept the role of strong regions and we have focused almost exclusively on non-controversial issues or game reform for a while. In the place of real issues, the game has become a test of personalities.

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course, this is all because those issues have all been "solved" in Atlasia at the present moment. The game's status quo is a social democracy, most of us accept the role of strong regions and we have focused almost exclusively on non-controversial issues or game reform for a while. In the place of real issues, the game has become a test of personalities.

And that's why the game sucks. You all are the reason for it.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

If people are truly "tired" perhaps it's time for the R word.

[Purple State]

Of course, this is all because those issues have all been "solved" in Atlasia at the present moment. The game's status quo is a social democracy, most of us accept the role of strong regions and we have focused almost exclusively on non-controversial issues or game reform for a while. In the place of real issues, the game has become a test of personalities.

And that's why the game sucks. You all are the reason for it.

Well I'm going to try to undo that, but I can't do it alone. Broad popular support for a federal "reset" is needed to make it happen.

[Vepres]

Of course, this is all because those issues have all been "solved" in Atlasia at the present moment. The game's status quo is a social democracy, most of us accept the role of strong regions and we have focused almost exclusively on non-controversial issues or game reform for a while. In the place of real issues, the game has become a test of personalities.

And that's why the game sucks. You all are the reason for it.

Well I'm going to try to undo that, but I can't do it alone. Broad popular support for a federal "reset" is needed to make it happen.

I think a determined opposition on the right would work just as well as a reboot. If elected (shameless plug ) I will help to organize a strong opposition to the status quo of vague social democracy.

Besides, without a strong opposition, a reboot would be rather pointless, as you'd essentially end up where we are now within a few Senates.

[Purple State]

Of course, this is all because those issues have all been "solved" in Atlasia at the present moment. The game's status quo is a social democracy, most of us accept the role of strong regions and we have focused almost exclusively on non-controversial issues or game reform for a while. In the place of real issues, the game has become a test of personalities.

And that's why the game sucks. You all are the reason for it.

Well I'm going to try to undo that, but I can't do it alone. Broad popular support for a federal "reset" is needed to make it happen.

I think a determined opposition on the right would work just as well as a reboot. If elected (shameless plug ) I will help to organize a strong opposition to the status quo of vague social democracy.

Besides, without a strong opposition, a reboot would be rather pointless, as you'd essentially end up where we are now within a few Senates.

A strong right would be possible only if the right is organizationally and numerically more powerful than the JCP, which will be determined in the upcoming election.

That said, a resurgent right is by no means a replacement for a "restart." I fear that a right-dominated Senate would end up just as entrenched and boring as the status quo, simply frittering away at the margins. To create true excitement, we need to start over.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know, I am beginning to reconsider the Legislative Reboot idea.

[Purple State]

You know, I am beginning to reconsider the Legislative Reboot idea.

I hope that means you are now in favor. This game has simply become too overburdened to continue on without a refresh. A refresh would allow new ideas to emerge, it would make the new budget process much simpler from the start and it would reengage people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Of course, this is all because those issues have all been "solved" in Atlasia at the present moment. The game's status quo is a social democracy, most of us accept the role of strong regions and we have focused almost exclusively on non-controversial issues or game reform for a while. In the place of real issues, the game has become a test of personalities.

And that's why the game sucks. You all are the reason for it.

Well I'm going to try to undo that, but I can't do it alone. Broad popular support for a federal "reset" is needed to make it happen.

I think a determined opposition on the right would work just as well as a reboot. If elected (shameless plug ) I will help to organize a strong opposition to the status quo of vague social democracy.

Besides, without a strong opposition, a reboot would be rather pointless, as you'd essentially end up where we are now within a few Senates.

A strong right would be possible only if the right is organizationally and numerically more powerful than the JCP, which will be determined in the upcoming election.

That said, a resurgent right is by no means a replacement for a "restart." I fear that a right-dominated Senate would end up just as entrenched and boring as the status quo, simply frittering away at the margins. To create true excitement, we need to start over.

     A right-wing majority would likely disappear much more rapidly, though, since the internet is a fairly left-leaning place.