Presidential Press Conference

[Nym90]

The Press Conference will start promptly at 7 PM EST. Be there or be square!

[Nym90]

The Press Conference will now commence.

[ShapeShifter]

So, Can i ask a question?

[Nym90]

Yes.

[ShapeShifter]

Why is the chairman of the AFDNC endorsing a progressive member over a democrat member for the District Two race? Do you support this?

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President, what do you think of this unholy alliance between your party and the Progressives?  

[Nym90]

ShapeShifter--

No official Presidential endorsements have yet been made. However, these will be forthcoming once the positions and views of all of the candidates have been studied. While I favor candidates who agree with me on the issues and are of my party, this will not be the sole factor in determing endorsements.

Supersoulty--

I assume your statement was tongue-in-cheek. That being said, Democrats and Progressives share many ideals and values, and I don't see it as unusual that we may at times support each other's candidates.

[ShapeShifter]

ShapeShifter--

No official Presidential endorsements have yet been made. However, these will be forthcoming once the positions and views of all of the candidates have been studied. While I favor candidates who agree with me on the issues and are of my party, this will not be the sole factor in determing endorsements.

Supersoulty--

I assume your statement was tongue-in-cheek. That being said, Democrats and Progressives share many ideals and values, and I don't see it as unusual that we may at times support each other's candidates.

So you are saying, you will possibily endorse a progressive member over a democratic member???

[Nym90]

That is correct, this cannot be ruled out. As I said, I will look at several factors, one of which is party affiliation. As President of the entire Atlas Forum, I am not only beholden to the members of my own party.

[ShapeShifter]

That is correct, this cannot be ruled out. As I said, I will look at several factors, one of which is party affiliation. As President of the entire Atlas Forum, I am not only beholden to the members of my own party.

Then what is the point of the party then? If there is no party unity???

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President, what would you say to the suggestion that Preferential Voting clearly is disigned to creat super majority control for the Dems and Pros?  And do you aggree with "one man one vote" principle that many Dems seem to hold so dear?

[Fritz]

Mr. President, I am a new member here and I appreciate the opportunity to ask you a question directly.  Recently a Constitution was passed by this forum, together with six amendments to the Constitution.  I have been trying to find the text to Amendment #6, and have been informed that it has never actually been written down.  This seems to me to be a gross miscarriage of procedure.  Do you feel that the unwritten Sicth Amendment has officially passed voting, and will be made part of the Constitution?  If so, when will it be written and by whom?  What is your position on this issue?

[Nym90]

The point of a political party is to bring together people who have similar views, goals, and ideals. However, these are not going to be exactly alike, and the President in particular has an obligation to consider views and credentials of members from all sides. Members of the party work together toward a common goal, based on a shared set of ideals, but they should not blindly support their own party members without considering anything else.

[ShapeShifter]

The point of a political party is to bring together people who have similar views, goals, and ideals. However, these are not going to be exactly alike, and the President in particular has an obligation to consider views and credentials of members from all sides. Members of the party work together toward a common goal, based on a shared set of ideals, but they should not blindly support their own party members without considering anything else.

So, hypothecially speaking, if there was 10 issues, and we agreed on 8 out of 10, and a progressive agreed on 9 out of 10, you tell me, you would even considered endorsing them instead of the democratic member???

[Nym90]

Hypothetically, yes the Progressive could receive an endorsement, or there could be no Presidential endorsement at all. No official decisions have yet been made by the President about endorsements for any Senate seats.

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President, you didn't answer my question.

[ShapeShifter]

Would you do ANYTHING to win the election?

[Nym90]

I am personally in support of preferential voting, as it ensures that the candidate who is elected will have the greatest overall appeal to the most members. It ensures that a candidate cannot get elected with a strong appeal to a minority of voters and a strong disapproval from the majority of voters. It forces candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. It does not violate the principle of one man one vote, as voters still have only one choice for their first preference, and overall it gives a more accurate view of the overall intentions of the voters by allowing them to state a preference on any potential one-on-one matchup between any two candidates, rather than simply assuming that all candidates who a voter does not vote for are equal in the voter's mind (which is going to be quite often the case).

[Nym90]

No, I would absolutely not do anything outside the bounds of ethical behavior or outside the rules of the Atlas Constitution.

[12th Doctor]

I am personally in support of preferential voting, as it ensures that the candidate who is elected will have the greatest overall appeal to the most members. It ensures that a candidate cannot get elected with a strong appeal to a minority of voters and a strong disapproval from the majority of voters. It forces candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. It does not violate the principle of one man one vote, as voters still have only once choice for their first preference, and overall it gives a more accurate view of the overall intentions of the voters by allowing them to state a preference on any potential one-on-one matchup between any two candidates, rather than simply assuming that all candidates who a voter does not vote for are equal in the voter's mind (which is going to be quite often the case).

What do you say to those critics who call this a blatently self-motivated move by Dems and Pros to use the most sacred document of ur forum for political advantage?


And what do you think of Gov. Supersoulty's proposal to eliminate this so-called "VI Amendment" if he were elected?

[Nym90]

I have stated my reasons for supporting it. The democratic will of the people will be best upheld by preferential voting. It will ensure that whomever has the broadest support from the majority of the voters will win. I support it because it is the best system to ensure that the overall will of the people is upheld.

I would oppose any effort to eliminate preferential voting.

[12th Doctor]

I have stated my reasons for supporting it. The democratic will of the people will be best upheld by preferential voting. It will ensure that whomever has the broadest support from the majority of the voters will win. I support it because it is the best system to ensure that the overall will of the people is upheld.

I would oppose any effort to eliminate preferential voting.

It would certainly assure dominace for one major party and one that doesn't have enough votes to get anyone elected on it's own, wouldn't it Mr. President?

[Fritz]

Mr. President, I am a new member here and I appreciate the opportunity to ask you a question directly.  Recently a Constitution was passed by this forum, together with six amendments to the Constitution.  I have been trying to find the text to Amendment #6, and have been informed that it has never actually been written down.  This seems to me to be a gross miscarriage of procedure.  Do you feel that the unwritten Sixth Amendment has officially passed voting, and will be made part of the Constitution?  If so, when will it be written and by whom?  What is your position on this issue?

Mr. President, if you could please address my question.

[ShapeShifter]

The point of a political party is to bring together people who have similar views, goals, and ideals. However, these are not going to be exactly alike, and the President in particular has an obligation to consider views and credentials of members from all sides. Members of the party work together toward a common goal, based on a shared set of ideals, but they should not blindly support their own party members without considering anything else.

So based on this, you endorsing for any democrat to consider voting for the republican presidential candidate or any race for that matter? Where is the Party unity in this?

[Nym90]

It would ensure that whichever party has the broadest overall support would win, whomever that may be. And as is always true in politics, there is an ebb and flow in overall party membership and in political views among the people as a whole over time, so the long-range effects of preferential voting cannot be determined.

The individual voters can make up their own mind on their first, second, and third choices, independent of their party affiliation, and the will of the people would be best upheld by a preferential system.