((.......Wow..... maybe GOP end was a bit presumptive...))
Indeed. It seems that the Federal Party is the only one capable of getting any votes.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Indeed. It seems that the Federal Party is the only one capable of getting any votes.
((And so Vallejo and his Federal party declared the Constitution void, granted themselves a monopoly on political power, and went on to conquer the rest of North America... ))
))
((Well, if Abstaining was a party it would be a quite decent competitor (in fact, if the trial had come earlier, before both parties picked someone who could be seen as part of the establishment which brought about the trials, maybe it would have benefited one side or the other a lot [SNP revival? ]. Maybe they can field a dark horse candidate.
Maybe I should make the administration a warmongering warmongerer and get us into some unpopular crazy war for the fun of it.))
]. Maybe they can field a dark horse candidate.Voiding the constitution and conquering the world. That sounds fun.((And so Vallejo and his Federal party declared the Constitution void, granted themselves a monopoly on political power, and went on to conquer the rest of North America...
Maybe I should make the administration a warmongering warmongerer and get us into some unpopular crazy war for the fun of it.
))
((If the number of abstains outnumber or equal the number of votes for the Federalists, what will you do? I'm asking, because I'm itching to switch my vote to abstain as well ))
))
((If the number of abstains outnumber or equal the number of votes for the Federalists, what will you do? I'm asking, because I'm itching to switch my vote to abstain as well
I'm praying it doesn't come to that.
If however, it does:
The victory is already Vallejo's, unless all the abstains suddenly go Callahan and you switch, in which case it's a draw. For Thread purposes, abstains are treated as though they never happened.
For story purposes, I'll probably take half the abstains and count them as Callahan votes.
((And so Vallejo and his Federal party declared the Constitution void, granted themselves a monopoly on political power, and went on to conquer the rest of North America...
((The true reason for our focus on the FBI is exposed!))
((I think it's because the Federalist have such a broad charter that pretty much nobody has bothered to join the Democrats or Republicans.
Perhaps the Democrats will make accusations of vote rigging and fraud?
I certainly think the party system needs another shake-up. We need one conservative party (for the confederate apologists), one liberal party (so Riccardo isn't homeless anymore
) and one socialist party (Because for some reason we can't decide on one party). Nontheless, one way or another this will be Callahan's last election.))
Last edited:
(( Early 19th century British style liberals like Riccardo have to be capable of sharing a party with social liberals/radicals though. That would put me and Riccardo in the same party; which maybe be fair as there is for some weird reason more socialists than social liberals and social democrats on these boards, so maybe the various breeds of liberal should occupy one party in between the socialists/communists and the conservatives/reactionaries, I just don't know. Considering most of Jarvis' supporters are conservatives and not right liberals like his character; it makes no sense for him to get a party of his own AND for there to be a conservative party; they'd be redundant, with just conservatives split among the two.
The Socialist Party and Conservative Parties would have to be sufficiently clear so that the large constituencies of each on these boards would stick to them, rather than split 50/50 each among other parties, and the Liberal Party would need to be sufficiently defined as such.
Remember, we're getting close to the time that the British liberal party was taken over by social liberal ideas from the evolution of utilitarian philosophy, we're not that far from the 1890's and the People's Budget from the British Liberals. ))
The Socialist Party and Conservative Parties would have to be sufficiently clear so that the large constituencies of each on these boards would stick to them, rather than split 50/50 each among other parties, and the Liberal Party would need to be sufficiently defined as such.
Remember, we're getting close to the time that the British liberal party was taken over by social liberal ideas from the evolution of utilitarian philosophy, we're not that far from the 1890's and the People's Budget from the British Liberals. ))
Last edited:
((The only reason I didn't consign the conservatives to the dustbin of history in that scenario is to make room for the late 19th century Lost Cause resurgence that BBB indicates.
That conservative liberals and social liberals need to come to an accommodation to be in the same party is something I don't agree with. They need a healthy Primary season as much as the next party.
Maybe though, it would be better to return to a two party system if you turn out to be correct. As it stands there seems to be a whole lot of Federals (read: nearly everyone) voting along party lines, the liberals are voting for Vallejo because he's less socialist, the socialists are voting for Vallejo because he's more socialist and the conservatives aren't even voting because they are protesting their lack of representation.))
That conservative liberals and social liberals need to come to an accommodation to be in the same party is something I don't agree with. They need a healthy Primary season as much as the next party.
Maybe though, it would be better to return to a two party system if you turn out to be correct. As it stands there seems to be a whole lot of Federals (read: nearly everyone) voting along party lines, the liberals are voting for Vallejo because he's less socialist, the socialists are voting for Vallejo because he's more socialist and the conservatives aren't even voting because they are protesting their lack of representation.))
As it seems the Federalist has lost its original footing and standing, I Sign this petition.
I sign, however I would like to stress the states' rights bit over the "regional autonomy" bit. What is the South and the West, truly, other than states cooperating with other states?
We'll have open primaries, I'm just trying to create a nice wide tent.
(( Why not let someone else make up a party for a change? We're seemingly headed back to a three party system and with a shake-up to disband the feds and dems as they currently are due to the insanely open tentedness of the feds relative to the current number of players, and you are taking up the spot of the 1 party out of three BBB might not make up entirely himself; after having already doing that and having a huge impact on the game with the SNP? Projekt, you bring great energy to the thread but I have a feeling if I started a petition right now, for a party I know would get 6 signatures - I could throw my line to the old left Whig/Libertarian lobby + the revolutionaries - I would get scolded, warned, or banned or something while your party is probably going to become a reality.))
((I've seen your ideas/petitions get shot down before and am sorry for it. I also recognize the unfairness of it as you have (particularly in the pre-1860 past) been much better about following the rules than I. I have a feeling that the Feds can't last much longer, why not found your own party? At the moment I intended to test the waters with the petition, see if the substance for a new conservative party was there. Maybe you could do the same with the old Libretarian Lobby?))