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.

[Bacon King]

Innovative idea, but:

1. Elections are Federal, not Regional
2. The Whigs lost

[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.

[Lumine]

A very interesting idea, Cathcon! If that doesn't make the election interesting, I don't know what will...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It wasn't innovative. They were trying to recreated 1824 and assumed that the House would vote for Harrison or that some kind of deal could be arranged where one of the three would get the victory in exchange for well distributed patronage jobs and cabinet posts. However, the problem was that the House was also solidly in the hands of the Democrats so it is hard to see how it would have produced a Whig President even if they had kept Van Van, he's a used up Man from a majority.

While it may seem crazy now though, at the Constitutional Convention, it was seen as a matter of course that the House would end up picking the President most of the time, because "there was no way a single individual would be of such notoriety and standing to get majority in enough states to win outright", save for Washington of course. That is partially why they set the system up the way they did with the electoral votes, that then later had to be altered after 1800.

[TJ in Oregon]

How about we just write a loophole into the bylaws allowing two presidential tickets in June of 2013 and second preference each other? That way both tickets get to run, no part of the base or swing voters gets alienated and all we forfeit is the possibility of losing a tie on the last vote count from lower 1st preference totals.

[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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I nearly won for the right years ago with a substantive agenda. Although times, they have changed, and I'd have no chance in a federalist primary.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

What form of Conservatism would stand a chance at getting 51% here, that you would still consider to be acceptably to the right to be "worth bothering"?

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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What form of Conservatism would stand a chance at getting 51% here, that you would still consider to be acceptably to the right to be "worth bothering"?

That's obviously not for me to decide. I'm just struck by the extent to which both Federalist tickets have hesitated to outline or emphasize a single policy position that would put them even marginally to my right. This is despite the fact that I set out to run a campaign that didn't go out of its way to make compromises for the sake of centrist appeal.

(Obviously ideology isn't the only reason to support someone; Activity, experience, dependability and overall competence are also important. More important, I would argue, than partisan affiliation.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labor is a healthy party; we're flexible enough to occasionally have broad appeal but narrow enough that we've maintained a coherent message. I don't really see the need for a merger.

Nice non-answer to the larger question, you wouldn't be a politician by any chance?

Nix, I still don't see you as a considerable to the left guy. Perhaps that is incorrect, but I just don't see it, even with your Labor membership. You don't really have to "try" to appear centrist.

Yes there are other considerations, but history seems to dictate that they don't seem to matter that much.

[Adam Griffin]

Also why is that the left wants to merge all the time? Loose an election? Merge. Win an election? Merge anyway.

Poppycock. The only merger that has occurred post-dissolution was the merger of the Whig Party and the Imperial Bloc. The rest is ancient history.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nix is of The People. Interpret that as you wish. Nt everything is black and white.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I propose that the Federalist Party nominate drj and I.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think it's an interesting suggestion, but like I said in private, I don't think there's any possible way of making this idea happen. The senate just voted down regionalizing presidential elections.

TJ's suggestion is interesting. If he'd like to add it to the by-laws for consideration, he can move to do so. I'd suggest doing it soon though, because I'll be opening a vote within the hour. I don't think I'd vote for it, but it's worth a shot. Still, I wouldn't characterize what's going on now as a rift, and I think this primary could provide our party with some interesting options.

Also Nix, please stop. 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." The bottom line is, people can vote based on whatever they want, and to get in a huff because some people don't revere your detail-oriented campaign won't solve anything. It's a fake country.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I propose that the Federalist Party nominate drj and I.

You are more than welcome to run in our primary, should the by-law amendments pass.

[Хahar 🤔]

I propose that the Federalist Party nominate drj and I.

drj and me

[Bacon King]

I propose that the Federalist Party nominate drj and I.

drj and me

you mean drj and snowstalker

[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.

[Bacon King]

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.

First off, I'd kindly respect if my past inactivity was not an issue in this campaign. The problems I faced that caused me to sporadically become inactive have been dealt with in my life through some pretty serious events you're no doubt aware of.

That aside, though, if you check the campaign thread we've already addressed every issue you raise here. I also object to our classification as a "screwball" campaign- we haven't done anything to indicate we were not completely serious. Admittedly, we are unorthodox, but we're focused on reviving this game and that requires some thinking outside the box. I suppose I can't take your attacks too personally, as it's natural one resorts to petty name-calling and strawmen when they have nothing of substance to say.

I'd prefer if we can keep this campaign at a higher level of discussion, but if you insist at degrading the level of discourse I guess I have no choice but to respond in kind.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

We're ignoring something that's pretty pivotal here. When is the last time it mattered a snowball's chance in hell who the president was? I know that sounds terrible, but seriously: Marokai has accomplished next to nothing, Napoleon accomplished next to nothing (despite basking in a detail-oriented campaign)... the list goes on. So wouldn't it be nice to, you know, actually win? The sky won't fall. And, in truth, all Atlasia really, honestly needs is someone who can work with people without causing a gigantic fuss—the game needs to be fun. And out of the three tickets we're discussing in this thread, only one has resorted to name-calling, insults, instigation, and negativity. 

No one is being "disgraceful" and no one is "stooping." We want to win just like the Labor Party wanted to win when they scored you as a "get," Nix. It makes us terrible? Really? Really?

Sheesh.

[Maxwell]

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

[Bacon King]

Oh, right, because this is serious and substantive?

<excellent campaign ad>

Give me an inksing break.

Certainly it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, obviously; I made it a bit humorous so that it would get more notice and so that I didn't cause any hard feelings between Matt and myself. However, the issues I present are certainly serious- I'm highlighting that Oakvale/BK is more in sync with Federalist principles than our opponents in the primary, particularly on the topics they have decided to focus their campaign on.

How is that not serious and substantive? Surely a post doesn't need to be five humorless pages of tl;dr to be taken seriously around here, no?

[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.