What message would a party that already holds 100 Senate seats use in their elections?

[darklordoftech]

They wouldn’t be able to say, “Give us more Senate seats so we can pass bills”, so what would it be?

[patzer]

Campaign on past achievements, "keep up the good work we've done already"?

In practice such a party system wouldn't be sustainable as divisions within the party would be amplified.

[Ferguson97]

A party with this kind of mandate wouldn't need to have a message.

[Kabam]

Most likely, vote for us or go to prison.

[Хahar 🤔]

In practice such a party system wouldn't be sustainable as divisions within the party would be amplified.

This is not obvious. Between 1934 and 1988, in a political system very similar to that of the United States, the government party held every seat in the Mexican Senate.

[Atlas Force]

Something about not changing horses midstream.

[Spectator]

Manufacture a crisis like the caravan in 2018.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Assuming this is a democracy and the party has been fairly voted into office, I would think the strategy would be a combo of emphasizing stability and strength, while hammering on the least-popular proposals of the opposition party and defining them before they can.

[CelestialAlchemy]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Easy enough.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I think it would be something along the lines of "ayyyy come onnnnnn"

[Vosem]

In practice such a party system wouldn't be sustainable as divisions within the party would be amplified.

This is not obvious. Between 1934 and 1988, in a political system very similar to that of the United States, the government party held every seat in the Mexican Senate.

This is an interesting answer; the PRI in Mexico was an example of a Leninist state-party -- here meaning Leninist not necessarily in the sense of "Marxist", but in the sense of a single unified party that exists to supply cadres for the government and establish its dogma, as in the USSR/Nazi Germany/modern China/20th-century Mexico -- and an institution like that can in fact be welded into basically any sort of political system.

The US has had a basically uniparty moment -- the Republicans under Monroe in the early 1820s. That party ended up cracking because personal ambitions and sectional differences would crack an American uniparty under a democratic system, where election results carry any degree of uncertainty. It's difficult to imagine such a thing happening again for a whole host of reasons, but a basic one might be the presidential primary system: since it became established* every presidential election has been decided by a single-digit margin.

*1984 was the most recent convention at which the winner was remotely contested, so 1988-present.

[Xing]

Some combination of defending the status quo, while painting the opposition party (if it existed, which seems unlikely in this scenario) as dangerous.

[Pres Mike]

Assuming free elections are still being held, party primaries would be the real elections.

The ruling fraction will warn that the opposition fraction were RINOs/DINOs. The opposing fraction will argue that they are the real party for change and everything bad is because of the ruling fraction.

Think radical republicans vs moderate republicans in the 1860s

In 1866, Radical Republicans won 2/3 of senate seats. Moderate republicans were the real opposition. Democrats were a non factor, they didn't even elect a leader in this era. In 1872, Democrats didnt even nominate a candidate. It was Grant, representing the radical republicans, and Horce Greeley representing the moderates.

[Stranger in a strange land]

In practice such a party system wouldn't be sustainable as divisions within the party would be amplified.

This is not obvious. Between 1934 and 1988, in a political system very similar to that of the United States, the government party held every seat in the Mexican Senate.

Did Mexico actually hold free and fair elections during those years though?

But even in the US, in the late 30s following the GOP's Depression-era collapse, at one point there were only 17 Republican Senators, and getting the various factions of the Democratic party to cooperate became almost as challenging as working with an opposition party. Even Obama post-2008 ran into this problem: he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a wide majority in the house, but because both relied on Conservadems, not much could get done.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Vote for us or go to prison"