-
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.
((I was VP during the Spanish-American too. Though I would count Peru, which I oddly had no involvement in.))
((Or feel free to vote for me and make it a horrible intractable three-way tie.
Incidentally, what is a Golden Vote?))
I was expecting more debate or haggling over votes to occur and was hoping to see some development of the platforms before I cast my vote. Guess it's too late to vote if it's going to golden vote. Either way, I am happy to serve at the administration's convenience.
Walter Mandrake
Secretary for War
Walter Mandrake
Secretary for War
Secretary Mandrake, you are welcome to continue serving the administration, if I have the chance to continue my presidency.
((I think there something on golden votes on the first page; I'd explain it myself, but I'm not certain of all the intricacies and such, considering we haven't had one in a while.))
((I think there something on golden votes on the first page; I'd explain it myself, but I'm not certain of all the intricacies and such, considering we haven't had one in a while.))
I suggest you vote based on policies, Mr Mandrake, not which administration offers you a better job (though I should suspect any party would be willing to give you the post of Secretary of War considering your wealth of experience in the military theatre!)
((A golden vote is simply that when a vote is tied for a long time any candidates that are losing are eliminated and the next person to vote decides the election.))
[/B]I vote for Joseph P. Jarvis[/B] only Jarvis will provide real solutions for the economy, maintain peace for our country, and perhaps most importantly provide progress against Jim Crow without insighting madness.
Also I apologize for my prior comments, I used Aparteid because my family originally hails from the southern region of Africa and the word has special meaning to me and my kin, I had forgotten it would be looked at strangely by others.
Also I apologize for my prior comments, I used Aparteid because my family originally hails from the southern region of Africa and the word has special meaning to me and my kin, I had forgotten it would be looked at strangely by others.
Thank you Secretary Little! And I congratulate both Ms. Vallejo and Governor Sullivan for running strong campaigns; it seems that with this golden vote, I have won.
members of the Federal party: Wouldn't you like to run on an actual federalist de-centralizated platform next election? I fear the federal rights of the southern states are being transgressed...
The elections have ended quickly and badly enough for us, i wonder what will be of you, America, under the symbolic Mr.Jarvis ,wish you the best of luck
P.D ((Wait a minute, even if i was Sullivan's VP, im not officially his VP until he is elected, so my vote does count, which at the same time re-opens the elections,doesn't it BBB?
P.D ((Wait a minute, even if i was Sullivan's VP, im not officially his VP until he is elected, so my vote does count, which at the same time re-opens the elections,doesn't it BBB?
Last edited:
((The candidates, be they Presidential or VP, do not get a vote, as they are assumed to vote for themselves...))
I congratulate Mr Jarvis on his victory, though I still hope that a coalition of the left, composing the Federals and the Progressives, will be able to block some of Mr Jarvis' more dangerous ideas and support the rights of the ordinary person from the brutal rich, if not actually prevent him from taking office!
I believe voting reform is long overdue and, judging from this election, potentially election-changing; therefore I propose the following five(!) bills:
((Yikes, that was quite a lot!))
NB I do not propose altering the mechanics of the senate, where 2 senators would be elected by fptp from each state, however, they would be awarded based on the vote share in the state, and not the number of seats in the state they won.
I congratulate Mr Jarvis on his victory, though I still hope that a coalition of the left, composing the Federals and the Progressives, will be able to block some of Mr Jarvis' more dangerous ideas and support the rights of the ordinary person from the brutal rich, if not actually prevent him from taking office!
I believe voting reform is long overdue and, judging from this election, potentially election-changing; therefore I propose the following five(!) bills:
((Yikes, that was quite a lot!))
NB I do not propose altering the mechanics of the senate, where 2 senators would be elected by fptp from each state, however, they would be awarded based on the vote share in the state, and not the number of seats in the state they won.
Last edited:
I will have to oppose the Mandatory Voting Bill, people should have the right to not vote, just as much as they have to vote.
Congratulations to President Jarvis, and I hope he will support the continued reforms that American voters were looking for from him and from his opponents.
I also oppose the Mandatory Voting Bill - abstentations are already accounted for by not voting, and I do not feel that simply bringing horses to water will have much of a positive effect on voting. I also would like more qualifications on the Prisoner Voting Act - when can a judge refuse voting and when can they not? When must a judge always deny voting, or when must a judge not deny voting? When can states or lawmakers make denial of voting or non-denial of voting mandatory for judges? I feel that there is room for abuse if there are not clear distinctions on what separates these two types of convicts other than the whim of a judge or lawmaker.
I fully support the other legislation, though. Elections are the basis of democracy, and making them more open and representative is a good step forward as a nation.
Of course, the Republicans are pretty close too - and they have some old ties to the States' Republican Party before the Civil War, so those old memories of a very federalist stance might be encouraging as well. With the progressive Californians getting old (Jarvis and Vallejo are both in their 70's, iirc), either party could really sway southern.))
I also oppose the Mandatory Voting Bill - abstentations are already accounted for by not voting, and I do not feel that simply bringing horses to water will have much of a positive effect on voting. I also would like more qualifications on the Prisoner Voting Act - when can a judge refuse voting and when can they not? When must a judge always deny voting, or when must a judge not deny voting? When can states or lawmakers make denial of voting or non-denial of voting mandatory for judges? I feel that there is room for abuse if there are not clear distinctions on what separates these two types of convicts other than the whim of a judge or lawmaker.
I fully support the other legislation, though. Elections are the basis of democracy, and making them more open and representative is a good step forward as a nation.
((And even if it did count as an extra vote, the Golden Vote would still put Jarvis at one ahead of Sullivan.))
((It's as if zombie Cameron is looking for a fight from beyond the grave.))PS. I just noticed something, of the four wars the US has fought so far TTL (Mexican-American, Civil, Spanish-American, Great), only one has started without Mikeboy in office (although the Civil War could technically be seen as starting in Williams' term). I'm not accusing him of anything, I'm just saying it's kind of funny that the US military's biggest challenges seem to have all been on his watch.
((The Federals were never really into full de-centralization, iirc. They used to be very much for a national FBI, for example. Once the current wave of reforms is over, though, they are probably the closest party to sway toward a southern strategy.
Of course, the Republicans are pretty close too - and they have some old ties to the States' Republican Party before the Civil War, so those old memories of a very federalist stance might be encouraging as well. With the progressive Californians getting old (Jarvis and Vallejo are both in their 70's, iirc), either party could really sway southern.))
((Actually we're both in our early 60's (I think Vallejo was born in 1858, and I was born in 1860; the last two leaders born before the end of the Civil War!); in all likelihood, the Republicans will be the Southern Party, or a new party will form))
I agree with the latter three voting proposals; the only issue is that the fourth one could be abused. I can be persuaded to agree with the first proposal, but the second bill is will not find any support from me (The concerns of Ms Vallejo, are also quite valid).
I also plan to propose an bill concerning economic policy today or tomorrow; if anyone has any suggestions, I would be more than willing to hear about them.
I agree with the latter three voting proposals; the only issue is that the fourth one could be abused. I can be persuaded to agree with the first proposal, but the second bill is will not find any support from me (The concerns of Ms Vallejo, are also quite valid).
I also plan to propose an bill concerning economic policy today or tomorrow; if anyone has any suggestions, I would be more than willing to hear about them.
Due to lack of support, the Mandatory Voting Act has been dropped, but I've added a new bill in light of the fact that the department for Justice has not been created.
Obviously, this is an issue for a lawyer or a judge; as I am neither, being but a historian and economist by training, I cannot give you full details of how this law would be treated in the courts. However, I believe that the more severe the crime, the harsher the punishment. Therefore, for life or death sentences I would support making disfranchisement obligatory, whereas stays of less than four years should never result in loss of voting rights, because had the election fallen at a slightly different time, they would not have lost out on a vote. I would propose, as with all legal punishments, allowing the Attorney-General to draw up the guidelines.
President Jarvis; could you clarify how you think that the fourth proposed bill, the Ease of Voting Act, is open to abuse?
Obviously, this is an issue for a lawyer or a judge; as I am neither, being but a historian and economist by training, I cannot give you full details of how this law would be treated in the courts. However, I believe that the more severe the crime, the harsher the punishment. Therefore, for life or death sentences I would support making disfranchisement obligatory, whereas stays of less than four years should never result in loss of voting rights, because had the election fallen at a slightly different time, they would not have lost out on a vote. I would propose, as with all legal punishments, allowing the Attorney-General to draw up the guidelines.
President Jarvis; could you clarify how you think that the fourth proposed bill, the Ease of Voting Act, is open to abuse?
Last edited:
I fear that having a proxy vote (if I understand properly, a person to vote in place of another, yes?) would allow corrupt members of society to place in multiple votes for their candidate, either by forging names of the men the proxies are voting in place of, or by buying their votes (the latter cannot truly be prevented, but I fear that having people without a vested interest in a candidate, instead voting on behalf of another person, could be more inclined to vote for self-benefit).
The FEC and CAB are both sound proposals, though I would prefer the latter to be managed by the states, if only to prevent the Federal government from having such a vast control over elections.
The other two articles are perfectly fine.
The FEC and CAB are both sound proposals, though I would prefer the latter to be managed by the states, if only to prevent the Federal government from having such a vast control over elections.
The other two articles are perfectly fine.
((Just one question; does the Presidential Voting Reform Act apply In-Story and/or In-Thread? Y'see, the main reason for first past the post being preferred is that it's a hell of a lot easier to count, and harder to abuse, since second preference very easily devolves into an attempt to deny victory for the voter's least favorite candidate)).
I personally support the Prisoner Voting Act, and will support the Ease of Voting Act if the incredibly easy to abuse Article I is stricken.
I oppose the House of Representatives Reform Act, as it will destroy the Independent politician on a national level. I for example, would not have gotten into the HoR had the Act been in power in 1910, because I would have had to gather 5% of the national vote all by my lonesome. Independent politicians are necessary to bring in fresh ideas to a congress often dominated by stifled party politics, and to act as impartial voters on controversial legislation. The HRRA will end that by forcing everyone hoping to do anything on a national level to join a party, and prove their loyalty to that party's ideals, however against the candidate's personal beliefs, to get on a reasonable position in the list of preferred representatives of the party. This Act will only solidify the dominance of the existing parties, and rob anyone with differing ideas to those of the Federals or Republicans of their right to be represented as citizens of this Union on a national level.
- John F. Harrison, President, J.P.Morgan & Co.
I personally support the Prisoner Voting Act, and will support the Ease of Voting Act if the incredibly easy to abuse Article I is stricken.
I oppose the House of Representatives Reform Act, as it will destroy the Independent politician on a national level. I for example, would not have gotten into the HoR had the Act been in power in 1910, because I would have had to gather 5% of the national vote all by my lonesome. Independent politicians are necessary to bring in fresh ideas to a congress often dominated by stifled party politics, and to act as impartial voters on controversial legislation. The HRRA will end that by forcing everyone hoping to do anything on a national level to join a party, and prove their loyalty to that party's ideals, however against the candidate's personal beliefs, to get on a reasonable position in the list of preferred representatives of the party. This Act will only solidify the dominance of the existing parties, and rob anyone with differing ideas to those of the Federals or Republicans of their right to be represented as citizens of this Union on a national level.
- John F. Harrison, President, J.P.Morgan & Co.
I have to agree with Mr. Harrison on those issues; I think that the HRRA could be remedied by removing the 5% barrier, or lowering it 1%. That way, more minor parties are included in the national discourse, whilst radical movements, which tend to have very limited support, are kept our by that miniscule barring. And by removing the first Article of EVA, I would more readily support it (even though I would prefer the CAB to be run by the states to prevent a Federal monopoly.)
I also would like to see the preferential voting cleared up; it seems a bit vague as to how it would function practically.
I also would like to see the preferential voting cleared up; it seems a bit vague as to how it would function practically.
((Obviously it is up to you, but it would be hard to reconcile having a different system in story to in thread, so I would imagine it would have to change too. Sorry!))
I disagree that the change in system would cement the existing party's dominance and prevent new ideas; in fact I believe the very opposite would happen. The proposed bill makes it easier for smaller parties to gain representation, bringing the new ideas currently associated with independents. Furthermore, more parties allows for wider ranges of voter opinions, meaning that more voters are properly represented. Small parties are more likely to get elected in the proposed system, than independents in what is increasingly a two horse race; the real blot on innovation and true representation is an outdated system which means only a very few special candidates can escape the two or three main party's grasps. I will lowered the barrier to 1% though, on the President's suggestion.
Voting by proxy can be useful if you fall ill and are unable to get to the polling station on election day, or if you are abroad during an election. It can be particularly useful if you are overseas in a country too far away to send back a postal vote in time for the election (for instance, if you are in the Armed Forces and deployed overseas). Proxy votes have quite a narrow scope and all proxy votes must be proved valid by, eg the doctor of an incapacitated patient or a commander of a soldier. This helps prevent fraud, as all proxies are expected at the polling station and all unexpected proxies are turned away. As to vote buying, it is both hard to prove and prevent, but this applies to standard voting as well; my only suggestion here would be to impose very strict sentences on those found guilty of voter fraud.
Riccardo93 said:
((Is this in regard to the theory or how it would be applied in-thread?))