The Crusader (Public Service Announcement)

[Lumine]

Revenge of the Labor:

Who is behind the revival of the Labor Party?

[Fmr. Speaker anna0kear]

I love how 1184AZ is listed both as "incompetent" and "competent".

[Sirius_]

Ninja (2)

President Ninja Confirmed

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Are you satisified with the present match-up?

NO: 70%
YES: 10%
Undecided: 20%

Is there another candidate you'd like to see running?

YES: 75%
NO: 25%

If so, who?

Full List: Siren (2), Ninja (2), Pericles (2), Griffin (2), Mike Wells (2), PUP Candidate (1), Weatherboy  (1), Vern (1),  None (3), Other (2), Unsure (2)

I guess this means we're in for a fun election season

[Fmr. Speaker anna0kear]

Ninja (2)

President Ninja Confirmed

Endorsed!

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Who called me Mom lol

[Lumine]

Editorial

Back to the Federalist-Labor duopoly

Editorial, by Lumine

As an avowed supporter of a dynamic party system which accounts for change and allows parties to evolve, rise or disappear I must confess that I'm not a fan of the developments of the past few days, even if such a disatisfaction puts me on a small minority. The reason - far from being practical - is actually one of principled and how I happen to envision party politics and their role in Atlasia, a vision which is dramatically at odds with the old guard at the core of what we know as the Federalist Party and the Labor Party, and their almost continued existence and dominance of the game over the span of the last six years.

The Good:

So let us get the good news out first: after the inability of the Progressive Union to actually pose a challenge to the ruling party and provide the nation with a healthy party system it would seem a more credible alternative is developing within the new Labor Party. And I say that heavily disliking the emotional baggage associated with the "Labor" brand, because the nation does need at least a semblance of political alternance if its going to avoid going stale, boring and insufferable as it was during the height of Labor dominance, and as it has shown clear signs of going under Federalist dominance. Questions on whether there was large-scale Federalist involvement aside (and as to the actual position of new leader Sestak on the left-right scale, which is a bit confusing), it would on the surface look like an interesting development with potential.

The Bad:

The bad news, of course, is that in order to get a more balanced party system (or rather, the potential for one) we are forced to see the revival of an old party which already existed for several years, had plenty of time to implement its political programme and drew the nation into some less than pleasing times. Indeed, the demise of said Labor Party actually created an interesting dynamic within the game before PUP proved it did not had what it took to succeed even in the face of positive demographics and numbers. And the far worse news is that the Federalist and Labor old guard seem committed to the continued existence of both parties as needing each other, perpetuating a party system which may very well be fun for those who get to be a part of those near inmortal party structures, but rather frustating for some of us outside of it.

Whether that frustration is broadly shared or not I do not know - I did note I felt in the minority of the argument -, but it does exist. Not every player can conform to becoming either a Federalist or a Laborite to achieve/remain in power, forcing some of us to awkward travels in the hopes that there will be a party of a group outside of such a narrow political structure. It is said that centrist, moderate or open tent parties are more of a danger to the game than the existence of the two old parties, an assertion I would happen to strongly disagree with. Something which doesn't work well with the nation is keeping things stagnated for long (lest we forget about the disastrous landscape pre Con-Con), and to have to deal with the same two parties taking over each other over the repeated span of six years isn't exactly a dynamic situation.

The Ugly:

Perhaps more concerning is the question: will it ever end? Because it would seem that if left to that handful of individuals seemingly obsessed with keeping a particular "brand" alive even if it is not to the benefit of the game there is no end in sight, not even across the years. And the old players may not be getting younger, but that still leaves several years worth of potential for the continued dynamic of Federalism v. Laborism. Is this going to continue for six more years, and then some more if those same people remain committed to stopping new party systems from developing and evolving just to keep us all on the same game of choosing between two realistic alternatives? I certainly would find such a perspective about as boring, dull and insufferable at it gets. And even worse, I'd consider it a sign the game is in for some very dark times.

What's Next?

Then again, political predictions have a habit of being wrong.

After all, the Labor revival could collapse amidst infighting or sabotage, failing to present a proper alternative to a White House seemingly unstoppable for re-election. Or Federalism could actually lose an election, and open the door to some degree of alternance and a change of pace. Or new generations within both parties could push for change rather than repeat the mistakes of 2012-2016 - unlikely at it seems, given the rising viciousness among some of our younger players -. A third party could develop and gain steam to match the success of the Liberal Party, or TPP. Perhaps even the party system and by extention the game could be filled with a fascinating and invigorating uncertain future.

But if what we're going to see is a repeat of those old, tired, bitter and downright poisonous years before the nation came within an inch of collapse... well, may the last person to leave Atlasia please turn out the lights.

[Pericles]

I'm going to do my very best to make sure that Labor does not emerge as the dominant left wing party. Let's not rush to premature predictions yet, who knows what things will look like in a week.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Called it! I knew this was coming last Friday.

That being said, there are some presumptions in that article.

1. Contrary to popular belief, I have never been a duopolist. However, people of like minds tend to coalesce behind unifying goals and objectives, that is the nature of politics. No one agrees on everything, even in the Feds. There are prominent people in the Feds who are pro-choice for instance while a majority of the party is pro-life. There are a lot of conservatives who agree that we should try to keep the Nyman government small, that is why regionalism has been such an effective means of holding the right together for so long, whereas previously the right just evaporated at several points as attempts were made to imitate the RL GOP or some faction thereof and in the process ended up dividing and destroying the right. This contributed to the nearly 12 years of leftwing or liberal dominance that this game had.


2. Everyone likes to read their own narratives into the pre-con-con Atlasia. However, the notion that we were brought to death's door by the duopoly is just plain incorrect. Atlasia had FOUR major parties in 2014 (Feds, Labor, TPP and DR), and by 2015, the Feds had lost most all of their offices and were just starting to climb out of the deep hole when crap hit the fan.

3. Overlooked in the fixation on the Presidency has been the incredible success of the left wing parties in regional, Senate and House elections. Federalists victory in August will produce the first Fed majority in the House since Feb 2018, and conservatives were not in a majority since December. And Labor crushed the Federalists in a series of election in the late summer and early fall of 2017, including the August midterm elections of 2017.

4. Federalists have been able to compensate for these down ballot victories by running popular candidates with strong cross-over appeal in Presidential elections. This is nothing new. It was the same approach Federalists used in 2013 and 2014 with President Duke and one President Lumine.

5. What is different, is we have been able to empower newer people to rise up and reach those levels of political strength far quicker enabling Leinad, DFW and then Fhtagn to reach such in less than a year in the game. So it is not like we have been shutting new people out over the course of this period, on the contrary our record run has been built on enabling and empowering new people to reach levels of skill and strength that previously were only made possible by being in the game for 2 or 3 years if not more.

6. This is not like the JCP where they GOTVed two rather inactive hardliners into the Presidency over competent, moderate alternatives. This is also not like Labor where twice in less than a year, had administrations that engaged in criminal/treasonous activity that led to the two systemic game shocks. Federalist administrations have generally (with one or two exceptions) achieved some substantial project or have been generally successful across the board. They have been marked by high levels of bipartisan collaboration and a desire to get things done, while still making great strides on federalist causes: regional rights and market based approaches.

7. The voters have and will continue to make their choice as to who should be President. While the left has peeled itself apart like a banana because it has come up short in the race for the Presidency, the voters have repeatedly given them majorities and victories in other elections. At the end of the day elections are in this game are earned, and if the Presidency has not flipped it is because a majority have been satisfied with the candidates that have won in any given election and were that not the case than someone else would have been elected. This is an elections game and if the voters want something they will generally get it.

I think the worst thing we could try to do to this game would be try to arbitrarily alter the outcome or re-engineer the political geography through some kind of top down scheme. The last time that was tried, we set records for low voter turnout, activity and engagement that were only exceeded in the mist of the 2015 crisis. Political success, for parties and candidates is organic and it comes from the bottom up. If the Federalist model did not work, it would not be where it is today.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I knew this was coming too, it seems I can't make a point without recieving a dissertation on why I'm wrong - it is fun though -. Some things don't seem to change across the years, like our strong difference of opinion on this matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose I have to give you the benefit of doubt on not being a duopolist, although I would note that I distinctly remember your opposition to Labor dissolving or disappearing, or to alter the Federalist brand. However, the fact that parties can have factions does not appear to - at least not to me - invalide the points I'm trying to make.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall stating the duopoly was fully to blame for the crisis (perhaps the Editorial wrongly gave that impression), but I certainly argue it played a role, particularly in terms of promoting the poisonous political atmosphere which was a factor on the crisis. I certainly argued the party system was a problem for months (if not more than a year) before things got really bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the Federalists could win elections as well under Labor presidents too, if I remember correctly. It didn't mean one party wasn't dominant over the other, as it has been the case for a while now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately Yankee, if you want to portray this whole period as successful I can't stop you. Myself - as I've tried to make the case for some time - I don't find it particularly transformative, ambitious or fascinating, and while I won't claim that's the majority view I also don't think that's a view which is only held by me or a handful of people. There's a reason why polls constantly showcase players as being unhappy with the way things are or the way things are going, elections being won in spite of that because of other political factors which take more importance because of the way elections are done in Atlasia (which is to say, a popularity contest on who gets more players on board).

I certainly was glad many new players were taking on prominent roles, and I remember writing in very positive - even enthusiastic - terms about the fact that we had a new generation taking over which didn't seem to be influenced by the worst aspects of Atlasian political culture pre-crisis. But A. Most of the examples you give don't seem to owe their success to being Federalists (if we are to go with the factor of those rising stars leaving the party or joining from somewhere else), and B. Many in the new generation have shown a worrying tendency to fall into some of the behavior that made Atlasia rather toxic in the past, whether with the Discord shenaningans, political sabotage or some of the scandals we've seen.

As a matter of fact, were it not for that last factor I think my own stance across the months would have evolved differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.

There is certainly a point to be made that ultimately the players choose the direction of the game and thus the responsibility falls upon them, that is to say, that they've chosen to continue with things as they are for a reason. There is also another more cynical side which relates as to how elections are actually won, and which extends way beyond people looking at things, finding them to be well, and then voting for the candidate. Without intending to fall into a dispute which isn't productive, I think it's pretty clear election victories haven't just been earned through people being satisfied with the way the nation is going.

Then again, I know I can't possibly claim the vast majority of players would side with me on this issue. If they did back my negative view of the present context in greater numbers I might have achieved a far better result in June, which strongly suggests - the other factors which led to my defeat notwithstanding - I am in the minority. I could, of course, simply shut up and take on a more comfortable role as it has been suggested to me, but if happen to believe in a counter-narrative to this highly positive portrayal of our current political context (which in my opinion isn't contested enough), I sort of feel obligated to fight for it.

It may not be worth it though, given the amount of trouble I've gotten since almost a year ago for advocating those views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't speak about dissolution because it is certainly different to actually be there than read about it (and I only came into the game in the aftermath), although you know I don't particularly agree with you being so seemingly affected by that event to bringing it up whenever this debate comes up. I will, however, note that changing the party system becomes harder when there is a refusal for change and a mentality to make a party survive at all costs.

To get into what is perhaps the main point: the Federalist model has been electorally successful, and it can be argued it has been politically successful up to a point. But does that mean it is currently a new positive for the game, or that it makes the game more interesting or more engaging to players? Particularly when several have left the game - particularly new, once enthusiastic players - in dissappointment, frustration and a rapid death of the enthusiasm they once held?

For you, it seems it's legacy is overwhelmingly positive and such factors are attributable to other factors, and at least for now (and for the past few months) I disagree with that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I knew this was coming too, it seems I can't make a point without recieving a dissertation on why I'm wrong - it is fun though -. Some things don't seem to change across the years, like our strong difference of opinion on this matter.

Isn't it more fun this way though? I am dogged and determined by nature and when I think something is incorrect, I am going to challenge it. If everyone player in this game did that, and yet kept it respectful at the same time, then yes this game really would be in solid shape in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose I have to give you the benefit of doubt on not being a duopolist, although I would note that I distinctly remember your opposition to Labor dissolving or disappearing, or to alter the Federalist brand. However, the fact that parties can have factions does not appear to - at least not to me - invalide the points I'm trying to make.

Yes, but I also opposed UA's Dissolution, TPP's dissolution, our own dissolution, DA's dissolution, the JCP dissolution, the RPP dissolution, the dissolution of the Liberals and the decline of Populares, UDL, and DRs. How could I be a duopolist, when I supported the preservation of so many parties?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall stating the duopoly was fully to blame for the crisis (perhaps the Editorial wrongly gave that impression), but I certainly argue it played a role, particularly in terms of promoting the poisonous political atmosphere which was a factor on the crisis. I certainly argued the party system was a problem for months (if not more than a year) before things got really bad. [/quote]

If the party system was the problem, then the decline of that system in late 2014 into early 2015 should have been the cure, it was not. It was what furthered the crisis. The decline of the Feds meant there was not firm opposition to Labor for that period and the rise to power of the Atlas forum clique was so powerful that different viewpoints were being chased out of the mainstream in favor of a cult that transcended TPP and had elements of support in both the Feds and Labor. It was the Atlasia that they dominated and led, that collapsed in July 2015. Not the Fed-Labor-TPP-DR paradigm where it was all split 50-50 and we went back and forth between contested elections going one way or the other by just a few votes including not just in several regions but nationally as well. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the Federalists could win elections as well under Labor presidents too, if I remember correctly. It didn't mean one party wasn't dominant over the other, as it has been the case for a while now.

Nix beat Matt by 2 votes, Duke won landslides and DemPGH won by 6. After December 2013, the right had control with a split Senate and the VP, which lasted until DemPGH became President and the split control lasted through October. Then the Senate raced towards the left in late 2014.

There was no Labor dominance in early 2014. Prior to that though, the left was very much dominant, a factor that was strengthen by the dissolution of the JCP/RPP as several anti-JCP liberals and moderates left and joined the new dominate party The Liberals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately Yankee, if you want to portray this whole period as successful I can't stop you. Myself - as I've tried to make the case for some time - I don't find it particularly transformative, ambitious or fascinating, and while I won't claim that's the majority view I also don't think that's a view which is only held by me or a handful of people. There's a reason why polls constantly showcase players as being unhappy with the way things are or the way things are going, elections being won in spite of that because of other political factors which take more importance because of the way elections are done in Atlasia (which is to say, a popularity contest on who gets more players on board).

But is that really that much different from how you or Duke won though. Surely your popularity with a broad range of people enabled you to win, while just two weeks later a politician with very similar views to your own came up short in a special election (Cris). Popularity is the end result of success, competence and reasonable moderation. If you are not Ben Kenobi or TNF, if you are reasonably active, and if you hang out with a diverse enough crowd, you can become President. Cris lost because Bacon King was more popular with a number of voters that just a few weeks earlier had voted for you (including one or two who were registered Federalists at the time).

I certainly was glad many new players were taking on prominent roles, and I remember writing in very positive - even enthusiastic - terms about the fact that we had a new generation taking over which didn't seem to be influenced by the worst aspects of Atlasian political culture pre-crisis. But A. Most of the examples you give don't seem to owe their success to being Federalists (if we are to go with the factor of those rising stars leaving the party or joining from somewhere else), and B. Many in the new generation have shown a worrying tendency to fall into some of the behavior that made Atlasia rather toxic in the past, whether with the Discord shenaningans, political sabotage or some of the scandals we've seen.

As a matter of fact, were it not for that last factor I think my own stance across the months would have evolved differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.

There is certainly a point to be made that ultimately the players choose the direction of the game and thus the responsibility falls upon them, that is to say, that they've chosen to continue with things as they are for a reason. There is also another more cynical side which relates as to how elections are actually won, and which extends way beyond people looking at things, finding them to be well, and then voting for the candidate. Without intending to fall into a dispute which isn't productive, I think it's pretty clear election victories haven't just been earned through people being satisfied with the way the nation is going.

Then again, I know I can't possibly claim the vast majority of players would side with me on this issue. If they did back my negative view of the present context in greater numbers I might have achieved a far better result in June, which strongly suggests - the other factors which led to my defeat notwithstanding - I am in the minority. I could, of course, simply shut up and take on a more comfortable role as it has been suggested to me, but if happen to believe in a counter-narrative to this highly positive portrayal of our current political context (which in my opinion isn't contested enough), I sort of feel obligated to fight for it.

It may not be worth it though, given the amount of trouble I've gotten since almost a year ago for advocating those views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't speak about dissolution because it is certainly different to actually be there than read about it (and I only came into the game in the aftermath), although you know I don't particularly agree with you being so seemingly affected by that event to bringing it up whenever this debate comes up. I will, however, note that changing the party system becomes harder when there is a refusal for change and a mentality to make a party survive at all costs.

To get into what is perhaps the main point: the Federalist model has been electorally successful, and it can be argued it has been politically successful up to a point. But does that mean it is currently a new positive for the game, or that it makes the game more interesting or more engaging to players? Particularly when several have left the game - particularly new, once enthusiastic players - in dissappointment, frustration and a rapid death of the enthusiasm they once held?

For you, it seems it's legacy is overwhelmingly positive and such factors are attributable to other factors, and at least for now (and for the past few months) I disagree with that.

I said the administrations were largely successful or achieved some kind of success in terms of a big project legislatively. It doesn't translate to the game as a whole to the extent to which you say and this is where we differ Lumine. You have a rather strong view of the power and ability of the Presidency or the Congress, to fundamentally change the nature of the players for instance.

You say that discord is a problem for the game. Do you think the Atlasian government is capable of or should ban the use of discord by the players?

Do you think the gov't can compel people to join parties they don't to?

Do you think the gov't can compel election results that the voters don't go for?

Do you think the gov't can force people lacking in ethics to suddenly become angels?

Humans are naturally flawed creatures and are prone to make big mistakes. The only people who can correct for that and change that for any one individual is that individual themselves. You are right we did have a wave of new people who were hopefully not going to resort to the old hostile tactics and I was just as happy as you were with that. But remember this, Hamilton brought his type of tactics into the game with him. Old people are not the only source of bad habits, but one thing that old people do bring is context, balance and past mistakes of others as a guide to the future. To the extent this sage advice is ignored, is often the extent of which people end up getting hurt in this game.

The gov't cannot control human behavior maybe that is just my political bias coming through but I think the biggest difference between us is your definition of success in gov't to my eyes involves the government pursuing, achieving and succeeding in accomplishing things that is completely incapable of doing. Only the people can change their own behavior and the limits of the gov't to regulate that are the laws and enforcement of those laws on the books.

I can call on people to be better, to do better, to respect each other and to listen to one another just as you have and I have done so repeatedly. I cannot dictate it by force of fiat or send the iron boot of the army down on people to enforce such desired character traits.

As for the Federalists, I cannot also control what the left has done and is doing. Just last night I stated my dismay at the lack of commitment to a given vehicle without jumping to a new one after a few tough elections. I cannot see how this game will be fun or energetic if the right cripples itself out of some misguided sense of fairness and thereby reduces our level to that seen on the left recently. That will only cause the net cumulative engagement level to drop, not increase, yet that is what you seem to want us to do, almost like some kind of redistribution of wealth but for electoral success.

[Poirot]

But is that really that much different from how you or Duke won though. Surely your popularity with a broad range of people enabled you to win, while just two weeks later a politician with very similar views to your own came up short in a special election (Cris). Popularity is the end result of success, competence and reasonable moderation. If you are not Ben Kenobi or TNF, if you are reasonably active, and if you hang out with a diverse enough crowd, you can become President. Cris lost because Bacon King was more popular with a number of voters that just a few weeks earlier had voted for you (including one or two who were registered Federalists at the time).

success, competence, moderation? Popularity is more the result of having a network and having many friends.

A bit going off topic but if you're talking of this special election
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/November_2014_Special_Senate_Election
in reality Crid didn't come up short by one vote. It should have been a tie. If I remember well, it was in that election there was one voter who posted a ballot twice and deleted. It was not reported (or nobody could provide proof maybe). At that time posting double ballot meant invalid vote and it would have ended in a tie.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to have to defer to Poirot here, partly because the point he makes is a correct answer, and partly because you certainly know that answer of yours is an incomplete explanation of the process. Elections are far more likely to be won through the combination of an electoral machine, zombie or relatively inactive voters and a series of tactics the present Federalist Party has learned to game well despite being critical of some of those in the past. Otherwise it would be hard to explain some of the decisions that have been made or some of the background stuff that's been hinted or partly revealed, and which does paint a picture far more cynical than this idealized version of the present.

I could certainly make the argument there is a degree of difference, starting with one of the most basic decisions a Presidential candidate has to make.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're going to have to agree to disagree there, Yankee, because I certainly don't see a big legislative project (the big concept beyond vague ideas on regional rights, I'd say) despite the number of bills passed, nor do I think issues like Korea lend themselves to a triumphalist narrative. You certainly know I've often made the point that a President can positively influence the game through the public discourse, engagement with the people, the advantages of the bully pulpit and so on, which is not to say a President can solve everything (a point I've most certainly never made).

If you want me to give you an example, I'd wonder why despite the fact we've been involved in a war for months successive Federalist administrations have hardly engaged with the public on the matter or explained their basic stance beyond a couple of examples. When was the last time the Sec. of State or the President engaged with the public and state what is going on and what is intended?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, let's not try to divert the argument into such a convenient ground to stand, because I hardly think anyone has suggested the government needs to step in and excercise control of the political process. Furthermore, the notion that seems to come up on some of your dissertations that a large amount of issues are reduced to this fight between those who want bigger or smaller government (or federalism vs centralism) is in my opinion an oversimplification (particularly for those of us who are not heavily influenced by the US political discourse) which hardly explains the problem.

Clearly the President, Congress or Government as a whole can't (and shouldn't) intervene on all four directly through imposition or force. That is not to say it cannot lead by example, or take other actions, or be a bit less tolerant of some of the stuff that takes place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right. So what exactly is the point of offering a few words to condemn something and do little more if scandals continue to pile up or people with a questionable record are either forgiven in rapid fashion and promoted to high office? I don't think this is the first time we've seen you condemning a particular action or behavior committed by a Federalist member, only for things to remain as they are and another scandal to appear soon as the older scandals are forgotten and people act as if nothing happened. Without intending to suggest that an unrealistic role should be taken, I have to wonder if the posture is always going to be "What else can we do?" after some words of advice or rejection are given.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, let's dispense with the government overreach narrative, because it isn't the point. The point is that you can promote change, lead by example and achieve some change in the discourse without having to overregulate as you seem to imply is the proposal (it isn't). I don't find it unreasonable to suggest a President can promote a given set of values or inspire other people, or take an assertive stance on a given issue or when it comes to political behavior.

Is it really enough to call on people to do better but then sit aside when they fail to change, and then carry on while people forget? Seems a bit of a helpless stance to me, at least one which hasn't benefited the country if you consider the problems some of these scandals have brought to other players.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, a very convenient way for you to frame the argument, as if I would ever suggest to redistribute electoral success. I'm certainly not demanding a law is passed banning or dissolving a party, nor am I asking for the center-right to take a step aside and give up, which should be rather obvious given how ridiculous the concept sounds.

I do, however, have a right to point out that an excessive desire to keep things exactly as they are and continued success on that task isn't healthy for the game either, nor does it seem to make the game interesting or fun for many players, particularly new ones.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But is that really that much different from how you or Duke won though. Surely your popularity with a broad range of people enabled you to win, while just two weeks later a politician with very similar views to your own came up short in a special election (Cris). Popularity is the end result of success, competence and reasonable moderation. If you are not Ben Kenobi or TNF, if you are reasonably active, and if you hang out with a diverse enough crowd, you can become President. Cris lost because Bacon King was more popular with a number of voters that just a few weeks earlier had voted for you (including one or two who were registered Federalists at the time).

success, competence, moderation? Popularity is more the result of having a network and having many friends.

A bit going off topic but if you're talking of this special election
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/November_2014_Special_Senate_Election
in reality Crid didn't come up short by one vote. It should have been a tie. If I remember well, it was in that election there was one voter who posted a ballot twice and deleted. It was not reported (or nobody could provide proof maybe). At that time posting double ballot meant invalid vote and it would have ended in a tie.

Extremists don't tend to get many friends though. Certainly not enough to become President, which was my point. TNF didn't get very close to Duke for instance, so my point still stands.

It is a different case for House, where you can win on just 12 votes. The fewer votes you need, the easier it is to get elected in spite of ideological rigidity and yes incompetence. It is typically not so for a Presidential election, where it is very tough to win 70 plus votes needed unless you have a reasonable expectation of doing your job and also you don't alienate enough people so as to preclude reaching that number.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're going to have to agree to disagree there, Yankee, because I certainly don't see a big legislative project (the big concept beyond vague ideas on regional rights, I'd say) despite the number of bills passed, nor do I think issues like Korea lend themselves to a triumphalist narrative. You certainly know I've often made the point that a President can positively influence the game through the public discourse, engagement with the people, the advantages of the bully pulpit and so on, which is not to say a President can solve everything (a point I've most certainly never made).

If you want me to give you an example, I'd wonder why despite the fact we've been involved in a war for months successive Federalist administrations have hardly engaged with the public on the matter or explained their basic stance beyond a couple of examples. When was the last time the Sec. of State or the President engaged with the public and state what is going on and what is intended?

July when I posted my inaugural, would be the most concrete example. I have generally been reluctant to get ahead of negotiations or speak in a manner that could get in the way of things as to where they are presently at. I want NK sovereignty free of foreign interference, be it by China or anyway else and I want the conflict to be resolve in a way that avoids any further escalation that risks global security. There was also a spacing out of reports and feedback, which is understandable and I respect Truman for the work he has done on this story line.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, let's not try to divert the argument into such a convenient ground to stand, because I hardly think anyone has suggested the government needs to step in and excercise control of the political process. Furthermore, the notion that seems to come up on some of your dissertations that a large amount of issues are reduced to this fight between those who want bigger or smaller government (or federalism vs centralism) is in my opinion an oversimplification (particularly for those of us who are not heavily influenced by the US political discourse) which hardly explains the problem.

Clearly the President, Congress or Government as a whole can't (and shouldn't) intervene on all four directly through imposition or force. That is not to say it cannot lead by example, or take other actions, or be a bit less tolerant of some of the stuff that takes place.

I wasn't trying to divert, because it seemed like where you were going with this. I have repeatedly condemned these actions and behaviors. People keep doing them because they see a reward for them. It did not use to be this way, and wasn't the case pre-cottonfield, when a lot of these more unsavory tactics would lead to decline in political success. There have been several instances where I have repeatedly said certain things should not be done. A good example, which has come up again, is the contacting of people after they vote. Virtually every election when I am on a discussion with people and someone brings this up, I say it is a bad idea and not to do it, once a vote it is in, it should be left alone. Why anyone would do this after what happened in 2016 is beyond me and I have certainly made my point clear on that.

Even when brought up as I joke, I immediately stop any talk of invalidating or deleting ballots as a means towards achieving election results.

I made public statements in December, January and February, when I basically said that if you cannot uphold the platform in dealings with each other, regarding treating each other with respect than you do not belong in the party. 

In June, I even went so far as to put a public disclaimer on my endorsement list, saying that I did not condone and in fact that I condemned any and all unethical behavior on part of anyone present on this list. How many campaigns have taken that kind of step, to risk pissing of their own endorsed supporters in the name of taking a public stand opposing such behaviors?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right. So what exactly is the point of offering a few words to condemn something and do little more if scandals continue to pile up or people with a questionable record are either forgiven in rapid fashion and promoted to high office? I don't think this is the first time we've seen you condemning a particular action or behavior committed by a Federalist member, only for things to remain as they are and another scandal to appear soon as the older scandals are forgotten and people act as if nothing happened. Without intending to suggest that an unrealistic role should be taken, I have to wonder if the posture is always going to be "What else can we do?" after some words of advice or rejection are given.

You said it, not me. One minute you are saying that I am not vocal enough, the next minute you are saying I am condemning such behavior too much without results? I love how you call for me to act and then always critique my impotence in this regard without ever providing a concrete, specific suggestion, concrete enforcement mechanism that is also legal and ethical in and of itself. "Without intending to suggest an unrealistic role", that is practically unspoken here, Lumine. I cannot forever stop the next energetic newbie with an irrepressible and impatient urge to conquer the world from breaking the Ming vase. I can tell them before hand why it is bad idea, some of them will listen and not repeat the mistakes of others. Some have to experience it themselves.

This will probably not satisfy you, hell it will probably enrage you further. But as leader of the Federalists, I have always maintained a flexible and open leadership structure that has enabled people to rise to the top based on skill. It also means that a lot of people are engaging in stuff without official sanction or position within the party, and sometimes these involve actions that I have repeatedly asked not to be done and I have declined to appoint people when they have engaged in scandal and were on track for a position in the party. I also "fired" LT from his position of Secretary after his scandal with Pericles (though technically his position had already lapsed).

You always seem to act like I have done absolutely nothing/remained silent (previous paragraph) or spent my time talking to the wall (this paragraph).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, let's dispense with the government overreach narrative, because it isn't the point. The point is that you can promote change, lead by example and achieve some change in the discourse without having to overregulate as you seem to imply is the proposal (it isn't). I don't find it unreasonable to suggest a President can promote a given set of values or inspire other people, or take an assertive stance on a given issue or when it comes to political behavior.

Is it really enough to call on people to do better but then sit aside when they fail to change, and then carry on while people forget? Seems a bit of a helpless stance to me, at least one which hasn't benefited the country if you consider the problems some of these scandals have brought to other players.

Dude calm down it is the same post. My only other citations of this have been as a means to lay out where the party stands and what my views are and thus discussions over any accomplishments along those lines would naturally revolved around them, obviously.

 I realize American politics enrages you (I am not fond of it myself- Koch brothers, gerrymandering etc), but if you could look past this one unsavory aspect in your view, we have brought the Federalists far and away from the RL GOP and the RL conservative movement's tactics and priorities. I think you could at least give us credit for that much. I think "federalism" is a small price to pay for having a reasonable center-right movement.

Again, should I drop everything, and shut the party down because LT did some hanky panky with Pericles? Screw Lechasseur, TheSaint250, Fhtagn and a number of others who did nothing wrong except to be in the wrong party at the wrong time?  I took action on LT within the party and voters took action at the ballot box.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, a very convenient way for you to frame the argument, as if I would ever suggest to redistribute electoral success. I'm certainly not demanding a law is passed banning or dissolving a party, nor am I asking for the center-right to take a step aside and give up, which should be rather obvious given how ridiculous the concept sounds.

I do, however, have a right to point out that an excessive desire to keep things exactly as they are and continued success on that task isn't healthy for the game either, nor does it seem to make the game interesting or fun for many players, particularly new ones.

It is a ridiculous concept. But you have been very critical of the formulation that has for ten years been the dominant force on the right in this game (which predates my presence by the way). Not because of me or PiT or anyone else, but because that is the formula that has worked best with blocks that have made up the right in this game over that period of time. The Populares nearly displaced the RPP and at one point were more pro-region than the RPP was.  Most of the splinter right and libertarians parties that have come up have likewise been of similar viewpoints on that issue. The Federalists were doggedly pro-region even when I was irrelevant and Hagrid chafed under its overwhelming power while in charge as chairman. If parties that are basically in rebellion against the dominant conservative party, are still taking the same view on something, that should say something about its demographic base of support. The demographics make the right the way it is, be it non-interventionist on FP or supportive of regions or the number of other things you respectfully disagree on.

Back to the obstructionist narrative are we, Lumine? You are very skilled at framing arguments yourself.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I have to kind of agree with Lumine on this one (I know, I am shocked too ). The two party system is annoying, the issue is people are entrenched on the two sides and once something gets going it is difficult to stop. Personally, I will admit I did have fun in Federalist leadership and I did feel I was doing the right thing at the time building up the Fed GOTV machine and all, however, it would be nice if we had other party options even now. Want to start a new party with me, Lumine? It could be fun

All of that aside, I remember chatting with you a few months ago and I will repeat what I said then, I think the left will take over the Presidency once Yankee retires, it just requires some strategic patience from them, something I often times don't think they have had since Adam left the labor Chairmanship back in 2016, but who knows, I suppose....

[Lumine]

South Constitutional Poll

Broad support for Southern Con-Con

Voters appear somewhat pessimistic on current institutions

Governor Tmthforu has a sky-high rate of approval

Are you satisfied with the present situation of the South?

YES: 46.2%
NO: 38.5%
Undecided: 15.3%

Are you satisfied with the current Southern Constitution as currently written?

NO: 46.2%
YES: 30.7%
Undecided: 23.1%

Would you support a Constitutional Convention for the South to look at the current text and make any changes deemed necessary to improve?

YES: 69.2%
NO: 23.1%
Undecided: 8.7%

If not, is there any specific constitutional amendments you think the Chamber of Delegates should consider?

Full List (4 answers here):
1.- Nothing specific. The whole thing needs an overhaul.
2.- No
3.- Reconsidering the size of the CoD
4.- Something about an archive and clearer/more specific rules about how the Chamber functions. Maybe the creation of a team to annually review the laws on the book and make recommendations to the Chamber.

Do you approve of Governor Tmthforu94's work as Governor?

Positive: 92.3%
Undecided: 7.7%

Do you approve of the Governor's role on the issue of changing the regional name?

NO: 46.2%
YES: 38.5%
Undecided: 15.4%

Do you approve of the Chamber of Delegates as a whole?

NO: 38.5%
YES: 38.5%
Undecided: 23.1%

Do you believe the current size and structure of the Chamber of Delegates is practical and efficient in it's work?

NO: 53.8%
YES: 30.8%
Undecided: 15.4%

What changes, if any, would you suggest for the Chamber of Delegates?

Full List (7 answers here):
1.- different Deputy Speaker-thumb would be great
2.- 5 maximum, change recall threshold
3.- Have special elections rather than appointed replacements. Soon 3/7 of the members will be unelected.
4.- I need to work harder and am disappointed in myself because of my lack of proper work ethic.
5.- I think it needs to be less vulnerable to downward swings in activity and right now it doesn't do that.
6.- Something to make sure it stays active even with a sh**tty Speaker. I'm too dumb to come up with a solution though.
7.- The chamber should be increased in size, elected in staggered terms by approval voting.

What is the single most important thing the South needs right now?

Full List (8 answers here):
1.- shift to the left ideologically
2.- more stability
3.- Spend some of that unnecessary surplus.
4.- Activity, just like the rest of atlasia
5.- To avoid controversy and work for the people.
6.- reasoned debate
7.- Free ********
8.- more engagement

[tmthforu94]

Twitter account up - i have a lot to say about the many things my administration is doing, we are working very hard! Twitter integration makes this easier, will occasionally post tweets in my thread as well. Follow!!!

https://twitter.com/southernatlasia/status/1037760793801109505?s=21

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The solution we used on Fremont was to give the head of government (so in this case, the governor) equal powers with the speaker to moderate debate, so one can keep the ball rolling if the other is AWOL. That provision came in handy more than once while I was PM alongside an inactive speaker.

[Lumine]

Right, while I don't mind having a continued debate elsewhere I will post my final thoughts on the discussion with the President for now, because this thread is most certainly not meant for walls of text to counter every publication made by The Crusader.

1.- North Korea: We'll have to agree to strongly disagree. I don't find it impossible to engage with the public and speak to them without revealing sensitive info, nor do I find it positive that for several months of struggle silence has been the norm and not the exception. I can think of several alternate presidents who would in all probability have handled the matter in a far more efficient manner, or at least kept the public engaged with such a relevant development.

2.- Scandals: Yes, I would say both criticism apply and are consistent. I don't find it unreasonable to state that what has been done in terms of scandals clearly hasn't been enough nor has it worked to deter more episodes from taking place. It would seem like the projection to the future is that we'll have to get used to these periodic scandals because nothing more can be done, which at least to me doesn't seem very inspiring.

3.- US Politics: I would argue the point is being missed insofar as it's not the ideological distance or proximity of the Federalist Party to the RL Republican Party which I've criticized now or in the past (not when I was a Federalist, and not when I wasn't one), but rather the notion that Atlasian politics must be concieved in strongly US-based terms, even against those of us with vastly different political or ideological contexts.

4.- Party: No, I don't think I have stated that the Federalist Party must be closed, its players withdraw from the game or some other extreme nonsense. I have, however, pointed out that the current approach clearly isn't working, and that given the apparent reluctance to do anything further it would seem we're settling for a "what more can we do?" mentality which is only going to normalize the appearance of scandals from time to time and it won't help the game or make it more welcoming for people.

[Lumine]

Election Special N°2:

Chairman Sestak:

The rise of a new and unlikely hero for the left?

Federalism mourns Labor return:

Federalist High Command thought to be distressed by the PUP exodus

First team to withdraw:

AZ/RC ticket ends campaign as new challengers from the left arise

Another Scandal?

The Advocate denounces possible voting intimidation in Lincoln

[Poirot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My final words on the parties issue. I wanted to say I hope we don't go back to a two party system. And I don't like when a group of people from different parties decide they have to cripple another party by trying to stop them from being elected (the conspiracy to not elect Liberal party candidate to Senate for example). 

[Lumine]

A Interview with Pericles:

Discussing the state of the left and the October Election:

Lumine: Good to have you here once again, Congressman. If I remember correctly your last interview for The Crusader was held about five months ago, a period in which we've had two mid-term elections, a presidential election and quite a few developments. Do what you do make of the state of the game during this period? Has it improved in your opinion?

Pericles: I think from a policy perspective we have made a lot of progress, the 13th Congress was by far and away(I believe it more than doubled the previous record) the most productive in history in terms of signed bills. However, policy isn't everything, and I am worried by the deregistrations we saw over the last term and you raise important points about interest in the game declining. The state of politics has also been tainted with the recent personality feuds and Discord scandals, which of course I have been a part of and that has been a mistake of mine. So it's sort of mixed, and right now things aren't dire but if we continue on with no changes then I think we could have problems down the road.

Lumine: One of the most cited factors in the recent drama surrounding the revival of the Labor Party has been the result of the mid-terms, which featured the Federalist Party taking back the House as the Progressive Union representation has crumbled. Considering the relative registration advantage of the left, how do you explain this?

Pericles: Well, we all know registration advantages aren't everything. However, I do think the left took these elections for granted, and we did not sufficiently communicate the benefits of a left-wing congressional majority. We had checked the Federalists when they went too far, such as on postal reform and the misguided Regulatory Process Reform Act, and we passed several progressive bills such as my criminal justice reform bill and child tax credit expansion. Also, we passed the HELIOS Act over a veto, but unfortunately this was just as the elections ended. This communication failure has fueled the Labor revival, as I've seen multiple people allege that PUP rolled over for Federalist deregulation, which is simply not the case. However, I don't think it's a structural problem with the party that caused this, and it won't be fixed by reviving Labor. It was a flawed campaign, and one that we need to learn from and then work together to avoid repeating in future elections.

Lumine: Perhaps one of the most controversial events of the past few days has been the allegations of Federalist involvement in the Labor revival, allegations which you have repeated and defended against Laborite and Federalist criticism. What do you believe took place behind the scenes?

Pericles: From what I've pieced together, I believe it started as an attempt to unseat Ninja as Lincoln Senator. The Federalists recruited MB for this endeavor. I have nothing against MB-in fact as my deleted endorsement shows I would have endorsed him if it were an open seat(as I thought when I posted it)-but I do think the Federalists were pretty cynical in recruiting a candidate to the left of Ninja, just so they could claim a PUP scalp so to speak. This then escalated to discussions about reviving the Labor Party as a whole, idk exactly how YT and fhtagn talking to windjammer about it fits in but it's still a useful clue. The person I believe did the actual recruiting was Sestak, and oddly he seems to have run to the left of PUP which goes against his history as a Yankee ally and moderate. The situation then escalated and became a bandwagon effect with even people who weren't PMed joining because it seemed cool and then the entire PUP leadership but me defected, believing the party was dead.

Lumine: To follow up on this particular matter, that revived Labor Party is currently in control of the Senate and having a strong registration surge. Is this the beginning of the end for the Progressive Union? And does this Labor revival have any future?

Pericles: I don't think PUP has no hope yet, otherwise I'd have already left. We've been refilling our leadership, with JGibson taking on Vice-Chair for instance, and reaching out to our membership. There are serious problems with PUP, but I believe they can be addressed and over the next few weeks I plan on beginning the necessary changes within the party. PUP after all still has around 55 members, just a few less than the Federalists and more than Labor. Labor does have sizable congressional representation, but we can't assume this is going to be a permanent situation. Labor hasn't yet outlined its platform, or proven that it has staying power, so it's a high possibility that it will die off again.

Lumine: The Presidential race also started a few days ago as the President announced his intention to seek a second term, and a handful of challengers from the left have already announced their intention or interest in running. The question being, is there a candidate you're committed to supporting now? And who do you think would be the best candidate for the opposition?

Pericles: I'm currently undecided actually, and the field is still pretty volatile. President Yankee has been pretty effective and active, but I do disagree with him on a range of issues and I'm dubious about simply continuing with the status quo. Former Senator Wells of course is a great guy, and he seems to have gotten off to a good start, but on the activity issue he has to strengthen himself there. I think both Wells and weatherboy have the potential to be strong candidates, a lot really depends on the quality of their get out the vote operations, as well as prior campaigning.

Lumine: Let's talk predictions, Congressman. How would you rate Yankee's chances of re-election?

Pericles:Personally, Yankee has a very high chance of getting re-elected. Dfwlibertylover is on the ticket and so will probably have an excellent GOTV operation like in June and his two re-election campaigns, and Yankee has appeal to many swing voters. It's possible for Wells or weatherboy to win, but very difficult IMO. Atlasia polls, as always, should be taken with a large amount of salt.

Lumine: Lastly, I'd want to talk a bit about your future and how you envision it. Having risen as an unexpected candidate for President - and persistent rival to a now former President - and having served in Congress for the past few months, how exactly do you envision your political future? Is higher office on the cards?

Pericles: Right now, I'm planning on completing my term in the House, and staying on as PUP Chair to lead the party through this crisis. As stated previously, I won't be a presidential candidate this election. I'm also unsure currently on whether or not I'll run for re-election for a third term in the House. I haven't mapped out my plans after October. I may run for President at some point, depends on how things go. In the meantime I look forward to the coming term and presidential election and seeing how things go down.

Lumine: Thank you, Congressman, a pleasure to talk to you.

[Lumine]

A Interview with Weatherboy:

Discussing Atlasia, the Left and October (Pre-Announcement)

Lumine: Congressman, thank you for being here. Over the past five months or so you've served in Congress as a Representative, and at a particularly curious time as well. How would you say these past months of service have gone? And has your opinion of Congress changed after serving there?

Weatherboy: Well first I'd like to thank you for this opportunity. Now, onto your question. I think these last months have been pretty alright. I don't think there's much to say there. I've been a bit less active over this past summer, but as I already pledged, I will vote on at least 90% of bills or not run for re-election. Onto the second part, I don't believe I had much of an opinion of Congress. I had only been registered for around a month and a half when I won my seat via write-in. I'm not quite sure what my feelings exactly are on Congress as of now.

Lumine: It would seem like the Atlasian left is undergoing a complex process of reorganization following the latest losses by the Progressive Union and the surge of the revived Labor Party. What do you make of this?

Weatherboy: I think that PUP was starting to fall apart, and the elections were simply the death blow. I think the reason so many switched to the Labor Party was because of the overall feeling that the left should be united against the Federalists, and staying in a party that already lost several prominent members wouldn't help with it. I also think some on the Left had issues with Pericles. Many pointed out his previous corruption scandal with LT, as well as his defense of the Ex-Im Bank.

Lumine: Now that we're half-way through the term and forty days or so from the Presidential Election, what is your opinion of the present Administration? How successful - or unsuccessful - has it been?

Weatherboy: I think Yankee's administration has been mildly successful, but I don't think there's much else to say than that. The foreign policy victories, such as those in Korea, were already starting during Fhtagn's presidency, and most domestic victories came more from the Legislature.

Lumine: If I may, Congressman, and taking into account the view of the administration you've put forward, what would then say is the reason - or are the reasons - as to why the President shouldn't be re-elected in your view?

Weatherboy: Well, you see, I believe that the President will, most likely, rubber stamp almost any legislation made by the Federalists. I think that if acts like the Regulatory Process Reform Act get pushed through in their current form that the President would, most likely, still sign it despite several legitimate concerns. That isn't something I think a president should do. Now, perhaps the President can prove me wrong, but I'll have to see it to believe it.

Lumine: Now, you've been proposed by some as a potential candidate for President, and have expressed some interest to run as well. What would you say is the single greatest factor that pushes you to run?

Weatherboy: I think that really the thing that's pushing me is a desire to ensure that Atlasia can move in a new direction after 2 years of Federalist rule.

Lumine: And if such a candidacy was to take place, what exactly can the public expect of a Weatherboy run for the Presidency?

Weatherboy: I would likely run on being a principled Progressive, who is willing to work with the other side to get things done, while still ensuring a left-wing agenda can get through.

Lumine: Congressman, let's go to the realm of speculation for a moment. Let us assume you were to win the October election and enter the White House, how would your administration look like? And how close or how different would it be to the present one?

Weatherboy: Well, I think some parts of the current cabinet, if willing to work with me, may stay, as some of them have been extremely good. Other factors may be replaced by those I think will be willing to work with me, and will be good at their job. However, I at the moment am unsure about who those people would be. I, as a President, would attempt to get a progressive agenda put through, and occasionally vetoing bills that I believe are unreasonable.

Lumine: My last question at this point would be about the agenda you just mentioned, particularly in terms of specifics. What would you say is a progressive agenda to you?

Weatherboy: I would say a progressive agenda is about implementing a more progressive tax policy to expand the social safety net to all citizens, while reducing the debt and deficit. On the social side, I'd oppose attempts to restrain people's rights, although I doubt anything of that nature would pass the house. Of course, it's all more complex than that, but if I tried to go into too much detail, this interview would be far too long. If I do run for president, I will go into more detail about my platform.

Lumine: Congressman, thank you for this interview.

Weatherboy: Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Lumine.

[Lumine]

Hiatus

"The Crusader" suspended for the time being

In light of former President Lumine's nomination as Secretary of State, it has been decided to suspend publication of The Crusader for the foreseeable future, and should the Editor be confirmed it will be suspended until his duties as SOS are over. The motivations behind this decision are a desire to avoid any possible conflict of interest moving forward, as handling the Department of State as a Cabinet official would undoubtedly be incompatible with running an increasingly satirical newspaper. We thank our readers for having taken the time to read or think about the material we've posted over the past few months, and express our interest - should a Senate confirmation be successful - in returning at a much later date.