-
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.
The State does have a responsibility to the people, but it should not be a paternal figure; rather it should act more or less... as a guide, advising the people, but not dictating their lives. Your ideals could be perverted into a tyrannic, oppressive dictatorship, whilst mine would only have an inattentive government, at worst. I would infinitely prefer a small, less-powerful government than one that could steal away the rights of all men. I must also remind you that sometimes, and quite often, the best thing to do is nothing. We had nearly a full decade of growth under Badajoz, even during war. You cannot claim the same success; he went to war, as did you; he had economic growth, you blame your economic failures on a war that's over, when an economic boon should occur, and has occurred before.
As well, I did not oppose your tax decrease on the rich; I merely stated my preference, my desire, for across the board tax cuts. I should also say that my administration may not be able to provide those universal tax cuts, but my economic policies would lay the groundwork for such decreases. As well, I would not oppose a temporary tariff raise to balance out tax cuts, which would have more tangible benefit to Chile. However, I promise to return tariff levels to the level they were at the start of my term.
As well, I did not oppose your tax decrease on the rich; I merely stated my preference, my desire, for across the board tax cuts. I should also say that my administration may not be able to provide those universal tax cuts, but my economic policies would lay the groundwork for such decreases. As well, I would not oppose a temporary tariff raise to balance out tax cuts, which would have more tangible benefit to Chile. However, I promise to return tariff levels to the level they were at the start of my term.
"The economic growth within Badajoz' government was due to -my- mining policies and my knowledge of the mining industry. -I- loaned money from the United States so that -I- could invest in the mining buissniss. That must mean that I intervened in the economy which in turn must mean that my policy of interventionalism does infact work. Once we had attained a fair size of growth, then more initiatives are needed to let it keep growing, it is a naive thought to believe that we can continue to have a large boost of growth throughout the age. Other factors as the state of the other nations in the world also apply. If a nation cannot pay to import our goods then naturally we will be exporting less, making our income and growth smaller. I have formed a plan to renew growth and to improve the financial situation for Chile and its people.
I suppose we differ also in our view of the role of the state. I wish for a larger state while you wish for a minimal state, and i respect those views and I do so because we live in a democracy, and even though I wish for a larger state then that is far from a dictatorship as you suggest. Our constitution protects us thankfully from such attempts through political means, but that is not what is important right now. I believe that everyone in a society has a role to play, and all these roles benefit the state and its people. The state must help to partially organize its nation, so that it can stand strong and organized. Not everyone has the strength, the will or the financial means to be on their own, Mayor de Santa, and it is the responsibility of the state to intervene and aid their people, while your policies will let such a man or woman in the gutter until a divine miracle sets the person in the right direction."
- President Romano
I suppose we differ also in our view of the role of the state. I wish for a larger state while you wish for a minimal state, and i respect those views and I do so because we live in a democracy, and even though I wish for a larger state then that is far from a dictatorship as you suggest. Our constitution protects us thankfully from such attempts through political means, but that is not what is important right now. I believe that everyone in a society has a role to play, and all these roles benefit the state and its people. The state must help to partially organize its nation, so that it can stand strong and organized. Not everyone has the strength, the will or the financial means to be on their own, Mayor de Santa, and it is the responsibility of the state to intervene and aid their people, while your policies will let such a man or woman in the gutter until a divine miracle sets the person in the right direction."
- President Romano
I understand you were the minister, but you were working in the confines of a free market system, were you not, Senor Presidente. It was not solely your economic prowess that lead to that economic boon; if that were so, we would have massive surpluses now, since you could mange the economy 'properly.' Since that is not the case, I am forced to assume that even a business expert like yourself cannot manage a nations economy effectively alone, and that only individuals can efficiently produce and innovate. The State has proven over the last five years to be a poor entrepreneur, and that it should be left to the industrialists.
I also believe that you have the best intentions at heart, Senor Presidente; but the fact of the matter is, is that a larger State, will almost invariably result in an authoritarian State. Rarely has such a large, intrusive system been able to be maintain itself without either starving the people, or enslaving them. The State is poor force for charity, and why should we force people to buy or fund something they do not want to, outside the military, police and courts, which are vital to the main role of the government; protect the people, and enforce the law. A powerful state, however, will continue to grow, and its corrupt, inefficient nature will crush the innovative spirit in favour of maintaining the status quo, its own power, from progress, innovation, and freedom.
You see, Senor Romano, while you and I love liberty, future leaders of this nation may not, and may believe that a suspension of democracy may be the only way to 'protect the common interest of the people;' that is, they will dissolve democracy, eradicate freedom, abolish liberty, to better protect the people, who cannot take care of themselves. If the government becomes the chief force, the grand provider, which I believe you will unwittingly start on the road to, then all Chileans will take that final step into a thousand years of darkness, haunted by the spectre of tyranny, lost in a sea of hopelessness, and bound in chains.
Senor Presidente, the State is not the answer to our problems, it is the cause, and we must support freedom, in all areas, if we wish to remain a free state, built on liberty. If we support freedom in certain strata, but not in the market, are we really free? If we dictate business, and force the allocation of resources to our benefit, are we not tyrants? We cannot, and shall not, under my administration, bow to the idea that the State is a source of good, and that the people must be taken care of; instead, I will follow the ideals of liberalism, praise individual responsibility, and advocate freedom in all quarters of society!
I also believe that you have the best intentions at heart, Senor Presidente; but the fact of the matter is, is that a larger State, will almost invariably result in an authoritarian State. Rarely has such a large, intrusive system been able to be maintain itself without either starving the people, or enslaving them. The State is poor force for charity, and why should we force people to buy or fund something they do not want to, outside the military, police and courts, which are vital to the main role of the government; protect the people, and enforce the law. A powerful state, however, will continue to grow, and its corrupt, inefficient nature will crush the innovative spirit in favour of maintaining the status quo, its own power, from progress, innovation, and freedom.
You see, Senor Romano, while you and I love liberty, future leaders of this nation may not, and may believe that a suspension of democracy may be the only way to 'protect the common interest of the people;' that is, they will dissolve democracy, eradicate freedom, abolish liberty, to better protect the people, who cannot take care of themselves. If the government becomes the chief force, the grand provider, which I believe you will unwittingly start on the road to, then all Chileans will take that final step into a thousand years of darkness, haunted by the spectre of tyranny, lost in a sea of hopelessness, and bound in chains.
Senor Presidente, the State is not the answer to our problems, it is the cause, and we must support freedom, in all areas, if we wish to remain a free state, built on liberty. If we support freedom in certain strata, but not in the market, are we really free? If we dictate business, and force the allocation of resources to our benefit, are we not tyrants? We cannot, and shall not, under my administration, bow to the idea that the State is a source of good, and that the people must be taken care of; instead, I will follow the ideals of liberalism, praise individual responsibility, and advocate freedom in all quarters of society!
"I might have worked under the confines of a laissre fair policy, but what I did was an act of interventionalism. As I stated earlier the war had been a priority of my administration, and war as i said earlier is not a time where industrilization and growth can prosper. For my next term I have a plan which will set industrilization in the works in Chile if elected, and this I am convinced will be positive effect.
Furthermore a larger state does not neccesarily have to turn into an authoritarian state. Those states are what we call dictatorships and Absolute monarchies, however a large state in a democracy has yet to have met its failure, which is why I see no reason why it could not work in Chile. A large state also does not mean we force people to buy a good or to invest - that is entirely up to them, a large state is made to ensure that exactly corruption does not take place. It also gives us more instruments to adjust and gives us greater initiative during a crisis, unlike your policies which effectivly leave the peopel to their own buissniss wether it is during prosperity or during crisis. I cannot see how you can remain passive and simply let Chile go where ever the road takes it. Also my policies have and never will turn into what you judge as tyrannical. On the contrary Badajoz represented the same policies which you do, yet he set forth on a coup effectivly cancelling the democratic votes and keeping him in the seat of power. That undermines every democratic value we have, and is everything that corruption is. As far as history can teach us, then your policies are more prone to result in tyranny then my own."
- President Romano
Furthermore a larger state does not neccesarily have to turn into an authoritarian state. Those states are what we call dictatorships and Absolute monarchies, however a large state in a democracy has yet to have met its failure, which is why I see no reason why it could not work in Chile. A large state also does not mean we force people to buy a good or to invest - that is entirely up to them, a large state is made to ensure that exactly corruption does not take place. It also gives us more instruments to adjust and gives us greater initiative during a crisis, unlike your policies which effectivly leave the peopel to their own buissniss wether it is during prosperity or during crisis. I cannot see how you can remain passive and simply let Chile go where ever the road takes it. Also my policies have and never will turn into what you judge as tyrannical. On the contrary Badajoz represented the same policies which you do, yet he set forth on a coup effectivly cancelling the democratic votes and keeping him in the seat of power. That undermines every democratic value we have, and is everything that corruption is. As far as history can teach us, then your policies are more prone to result in tyranny then my own."
- President Romano
How is supporting liberty and a small state more tyrannical than a large state with restrictions on the market? Again, we grew under Badajoz even during times of war, and the war is over now, and we still haven't seen growth. With economic recovery nowhere in sight, how do you plan to cut taxes and begin an industrialization programme, unless it is lead by the capitalists; if that were the case, then why not simply let them handle it? If not, then you surely can't afford the programme without putting Chile in debt.
Not only that, but a larger state is prone to either collapse or tyranny; the Roman Republic continued to grow in size, with a good example being Caesar increasing the number of Senators to rubber stamp his policies. Eventually, the Republic collapsed, and an Empire was born. That Empire was tyrannical, as exemplified by Nero and Caligula, decadent, and ultimately, a disaster for enlightenment, liberalism, and growth. In the wake of the Roman collapse, an era of darkness descended on the West, blotting our ideals of republic, freedom, reason. Instead, more minor tyrannies rose up in the Empire's place, each more barbaric and cruel than the last. It was only recently that freedom has been on the rise, and that freedom can only thrive in a small state, built on the individual.
I ask you this, Senor Presidente; why should the government involve itself in the affairs of the people? Why should the State pry into the lives of individuals and markets?
Not only that, but a larger state is prone to either collapse or tyranny; the Roman Republic continued to grow in size, with a good example being Caesar increasing the number of Senators to rubber stamp his policies. Eventually, the Republic collapsed, and an Empire was born. That Empire was tyrannical, as exemplified by Nero and Caligula, decadent, and ultimately, a disaster for enlightenment, liberalism, and growth. In the wake of the Roman collapse, an era of darkness descended on the West, blotting our ideals of republic, freedom, reason. Instead, more minor tyrannies rose up in the Empire's place, each more barbaric and cruel than the last. It was only recently that freedom has been on the rise, and that freedom can only thrive in a small state, built on the individual.
I ask you this, Senor Presidente; why should the government involve itself in the affairs of the people? Why should the State pry into the lives of individuals and markets?
((You still need to update the main page about the first term))
Fixed.
"I dont know. All i know is that a president who represented your values turned to tyranny while one who represents national convservatism has not. The war ended almost the same time as my administration, I am not God, and I cannot change everything in a day, but I can in the next term. Again as my political opponent you wish to find faults in my policies, and when there arent faults you must make some. With all due respect your doom-day prophecy on my administration has no solid facts linked to it. I was lead this nation through a war for its best, and at the same time i have prevented the economy from becomming worse. Roman "republicanism" is not the same like Chilean democracy and can at no rate be compared. Again a larger state will not descend into tyranny, it will uphold the interesst of its people. Your mistrust and prophecies are misplaced Mayor de Santa. I am not talking about total government control of everyones lives, nor am i talking about leaving everyone to themselfves and let them rot liek you suggest. I suggest moderation. Obiously we will not come to an agreement in this discussion, but I ask you to find more substantial arguments against my policies indstead of this guess work - with all due respect."
- President Romano
- President Romano
I do not suggest the people will rot; I merely say that it is not the government's role to 'protect' them. As well, I know you are not perfect, I am not either, but Chile went through war under Badajoz, and, as much as you don't want to admit it, it was a free market that lead to our growing both through the war, and after it. I am also not saying, your system is the end result, the total government that I fear; it is merely a stepping stone, a starting point. My system, built on liberalism and democracy, not protection and stalwartness against change, will bring Chile to prosperity. As well, Badajoz and I are not the same; and our ideals cannot be compared. The Roman Republic is the basis of all democracies, combined with the Greek states, which also went the way of government control, tyrants and were conquered eventually.
If all you can say you've done is "I prevented the economy from getting worse," and not "I restored economic prosperity; and rekindled the fire of hope in our system" then I would be concerned about your own systems effectiveness. I cannot promise, and neither can you, that the economy will recover tomorrow, or the next day, but I am certain that by placing the emphasis back on the market, and off the government, we will see a return to prosperity much sooner than under your system.
As well, considering how the American colonies broke away from a government that interfered in their affairs, and we broke away from Spain for much the same reason, and seeing how the governments of both nations grew prior to that, especially under the pretense of war, I believe it is fair to say that big government leads to tyranny. If government is allowed to grow, in the interest of protecting people, or to better dictate business, who is to say there isn't going to come a time when the leaders of government decide to take away the rights of all men, to better ensure that the people are safer, better protected, and more secure?
You have not commented on the expansion of the voting franchise (at least I haven't noticed it), and I am concerned that you wish to keep voting a privilege of the rich, not a right for all people. As well, your lukewarm support, and occasional outright opposition to reform, further worries me: what are your plans of reform?
If all you can say you've done is "I prevented the economy from getting worse," and not "I restored economic prosperity; and rekindled the fire of hope in our system" then I would be concerned about your own systems effectiveness. I cannot promise, and neither can you, that the economy will recover tomorrow, or the next day, but I am certain that by placing the emphasis back on the market, and off the government, we will see a return to prosperity much sooner than under your system.
As well, considering how the American colonies broke away from a government that interfered in their affairs, and we broke away from Spain for much the same reason, and seeing how the governments of both nations grew prior to that, especially under the pretense of war, I believe it is fair to say that big government leads to tyranny. If government is allowed to grow, in the interest of protecting people, or to better dictate business, who is to say there isn't going to come a time when the leaders of government decide to take away the rights of all men, to better ensure that the people are safer, better protected, and more secure?
You have not commented on the expansion of the voting franchise (at least I haven't noticed it), and I am concerned that you wish to keep voting a privilege of the rich, not a right for all people. As well, your lukewarm support, and occasional outright opposition to reform, further worries me: what are your plans of reform?
"I am saying my administration has accomplished much, and ofcourse it would have been great to be able to put a cherry on top and improve the economical situation even better, but I am merely a man not a god. My administration will focus on the next term to improve the situation, and I have already laid forward my plan to improve the economy, and it will work if executed properly, which i am convinced it will due to my experince in the financiel sector. We broke away from the Spanish, because it was an absolute monarchy, and because we do not wish to pay taxes to a man who lives thousands of miles away, and because he did not care for our interessts. That is also why the American colonists broke away from the United Kingdom. Thus a larger state does not equal tyranny, as I said before I do not seek maximum state nor do i seek minimum state, i seek a moderate one, and i have several times proven this works.
An interventionalist policy does not "dictate" the market, it "influences" the market. From there on you continue with your guess work dear senore. You keep speaking of tyranny, of doom, of the end of democracy or even the world, If I am re elected, with all due respect senor if i dident know any better then I would begin to think that if you cant gather enough supporters to elect yourself presidente, then you merely wish to try to scare them away. I have also answered as to how I stand with reforms, I have no need to repeat myself."
- President Romano
An interventionalist policy does not "dictate" the market, it "influences" the market. From there on you continue with your guess work dear senore. You keep speaking of tyranny, of doom, of the end of democracy or even the world, If I am re elected, with all due respect senor if i dident know any better then I would begin to think that if you cant gather enough supporters to elect yourself presidente, then you merely wish to try to scare them away. I have also answered as to how I stand with reforms, I have no need to repeat myself."
- President Romano
OY! As much as I respect you as a fellow general, I feel the need to point out a few things which I see as very wrong in your argument.
Now, seeing as you take the concept of a big government to one extreme end, let us take your concept of less government to the extreme as well, eh? What you are suggesting, fine Sir, is Anarchy. You're suggesting the total dismantlement of Chile as an entity! Our enemies would pounce on such an opportunity.
The less state there is, the more loose everything is. A loose organisation driven by competition cannot survive. Especially not when surrounded by much more stable neighbours. It will falter.
Also, capitalists only care for themselves. Never for the people. They invest in what they think is profitable for themselves. They don't care about Chile, only money. The state on the other hand must care for its people. Thus, it is much more suited for that purpose.
Señor Rosa, the state is not the cause of our problems. The cause of our problems are people like Zepeda and Badajoz. Scum who only care for their own personal power. Those who would rather see democracy crushed when it doesn't go their way. Those who would become the tyrants which you speak of.
- General Jorge Alejandro Santandera
Last edited:
But the capitalists are bound by the will of the people. The people do not want a certain product? They will not buy it. A capitalist does something the people think is despicable? They will boycott him.
This is the greatest error in the theory of economic interventionism; it is assumed capitalists are bound in no way whatsoever by the will of the people, yet they in fact are. That is the very basis of the market, of the capitalist system; were this not true, then capitalists (or, in fact, the state itself, were it to replace the capitalists, as many have suggested it should) could come up with any old product and sell it to you and you would have no choice in the matter.
This is the greatest error in the theory of economic interventionism; it is assumed capitalists are bound in no way whatsoever by the will of the people, yet they in fact are. That is the very basis of the market, of the capitalist system; were this not true, then capitalists (or, in fact, the state itself, were it to replace the capitalists, as many have suggested it should) could come up with any old product and sell it to you and you would have no choice in the matter.
Ah, but you see, while they might be bound by the will of the people, it is only because they want to make a profit. In fact, they could actually force people to buy their products too if they were allowed to gain a monopoly something which many capitalists work to achieve (for themselves of course).
However, all of that is simply a side point to my main argument. It is not its most important point, nor its main point.
- General Jorge Alejandro Santandera
However, all of that is simply a side point to my main argument. It is not its most important point, nor its main point.
- General Jorge Alejandro Santandera
((The political discussions in this topic together with the freedom of choice and interaction make it the best AAR I have read))
I feel that this is the best assesment for why the Nacionales should vote for myself and keep the coalition in place, and for why the People of Chile will vote to re-elect Presidente Romano. State Capitalism may be good for the short term, but if the economy is not ready, then these new factories will just close and put more people onto the unemployed list. Chile does not need that. We should instead continue to trust in Presidente Romano's and the Minister of the Treasury's economic plan to get new businesses and factories to start up when they can, not as soon as possible.
You see, Senor, there lies the problem; I advocate a minimal stat, not anarchy. And while the President Romano may not want to believe that a gradual acceptance, or surrender, or rights and power to the State will not lead to tyranny, but I am absolutely certain that there will come a time when a man, full of corruption and ambition, will seize power on the basis of protection, of security, and dissolve this great Republic in favour of a dictatorship.
The problem is with your argument, General Santadera, is that government naturally wishes to expand. While the president may not wish to admit that inevitable expansion of government, we must move now to fight that expansion, to guard liberty, and defend freedom from a powerful state. My views of a small state is a minority view, but my value of liberty counterbalances that.
As well, monopolies never last; most die after ten or so years, and can only survive for an extended period with government support, or legislation to prevent them. We do need some restrictions on them, which I never opposed. I support protection and defences for the people, which is why I support expanding the voting franchise, as well as other reforms, which the president has opposed as being radical.
Let me ask you this, General: when those callous, corrupt, and ambitious men come to power, is not the State a threat then? If the State is limited, those men will have a harder time creating support, filling government with their puppets. A large government becomes unwieldy, corrupt and will eventually collapse or transform into an autocracy to stave off that collapse.
The problem is with your argument, General Santadera, is that government naturally wishes to expand. While the president may not wish to admit that inevitable expansion of government, we must move now to fight that expansion, to guard liberty, and defend freedom from a powerful state. My views of a small state is a minority view, but my value of liberty counterbalances that.
As well, monopolies never last; most die after ten or so years, and can only survive for an extended period with government support, or legislation to prevent them. We do need some restrictions on them, which I never opposed. I support protection and defences for the people, which is why I support expanding the voting franchise, as well as other reforms, which the president has opposed as being radical.
Let me ask you this, General: when those callous, corrupt, and ambitious men come to power, is not the State a threat then? If the State is limited, those men will have a harder time creating support, filling government with their puppets. A large government becomes unwieldy, corrupt and will eventually collapse or transform into an autocracy to stave off that collapse.
"Bicker, bicker, bicker. Enough! You men are not convincing anyone to vote for your policies, yet alone to support your candidacy! The people will vote once your policies have been announced, it is time to stop enjoying the sound of your own voices. Nothing will be done by this constant strife and rambling, you're only driving the silent cabinet members insane, and the people to develop an impression of talk without action."
-General Cesar Roseno
-General Cesar Roseno
And the time for announcing your candidacies has now come to a close.
I'll update soon.
I'll update soon.
The 1851 Primaries
The 1851 primaries were dominated by two events: the contest for the Nacionales candidacy and the debates between President Romano and former General Antonio de Santa Rosa.
The Nacionales, who most believed to be the largest faction in all of Chilean politics, heavily controlled the election. Without the coalition, the politicos said, Romano would never have been elected President. Party elder Francisco Rivera once again threw his hat in the ring only to find Manuel Carrera, a very old enemy, waiting to meet him. Carrera and Rivera quickly launched their own campaigns for control of the party.
Meanwhile, all hopes of a second Liberal-Conservative coalition to exploit the Nacionales' bitter contest died in the streets, as the sole Partido Conservador candidate, President Romano, and the sole Partido Liberal candidate, Antonio de Santa Rosa, blasted each other in a dozen debates. Though their topics ran the gamut through policy, war, and economics, many walked away feeling first the animosity that seemed to be growing between the two. From his post in newly conquered eastern Patagonia, former Nacionales candidate General Roseno sent a rebuke to the pair, urging them to let the voters do the talking.
A sideshow to the primaries was the introduction of two major bills in the Congreso - the Press Act and the Industrialization Encouragement Act. Both bills were backed by the President, the first seeking to establish a private press (with some restrictions) and the latter creating various policies to encourage capitalists to move to Santiago by offering them tax breaks within the confines of the city.
The debate raged separately about the Press Act - while most seemed to agree that such an act would be beneficial to the nation, many voiced their own opinions about more crucial reforms that should be brought into force sooner.
Primary Candidates
Liberales Candidate:
Antonio de Santa Rosa, ((Riccardo93)) - Former General Antonio de Santa Rosa. He has attacked and been attacked by President Romano on a variety of issues and has emerged as the sole candidate for the Liberales. See transcripts of his various speeches for more information.
Conservadores Candidate:
Eduardo Emilio Romano, ((Pallen)) - The incumbent President, Eduardo Emilio Romano, came to power in a landslide victory as a union candidate between the conservatives and the nationalists. He and Antonio de Santa Rosa have been locked in a fierce debate for some time now.
Nacionales Candidate:
Francisco Rivera, ((atomicsoda)) - Party patriarch and Conservadores nominee in 1836, then Nacionales nominee in 1841, Rivera has resurfaced in the hope of leading his party from coalition to power. He strongly favors state capitalism and the construction of new factories to service Chile's needs, including a winery, a weapons, and a cement factory.
Manuel Carrera, ((King50000)) - Former colonel and current Minister of War Manuel Carrera has emerged as the compromise candidate for the Nacionales, strongly favoring continuing the current Conservador-Nacional coalition and supporting the sitting President Romano.
Monárquicos Candidates:
Witold Tamiuszski, ((tamius23)) - Candidate for the Monárquicos again and again, Witold Tamiuszski favors the abolition of the republican system and replacing with a monarchy. He wishes to focus on building a monarchist resurgence by focusing on the voter base.
-------------------------
Player Actions Needed:
It's time again for that voting system I know you all love so much.
Everyone vote on party coalitions. (Coalition With Any Party/No Coalition) and in the event of a coalition, who you would like to the Coalition Candidate. Remember that you can vote No Coalition if you don't want a coalition.
Also vote for a primary candidate if you're a Nacional.
You also have to vote on the Press Act (institute Censored Press) and the Industrialization Encouragement Act (cut capitalist taxes and move them to Santiago, basically).
Here's a sample ballot below.
Party: Monárquicos
Coalition: No Coalition
Coalition Candidate: Tamiuszski ((This is who you want to be the Presidential candidate in the event of a coalition.))
Press Act: Abstain
Industrialization Encouragement Act: Abstain
A sample ballot for the Nacionales would appear would appear:
Party: Nacionales
Candidate: Rivera
Coalition: Coalition with Conservadores
Coalition Candidate: Rivera
Press Act: Abstain
Industrialization Encouragement Act: Abstain
If you wish to vote for more than one Coalition, you may do so:
Party: Conservadores
Coalition: Coalition with Monarquicos, Nacionales
Coalition Candidate: Romano ((You can elaborate further in this row if need be.))
Press Act: Abstain
Industrialization Encouragement Act: Abstain
As before, CANDIDATES CAN VOTE in this particular election and make a difference because of their coalition preferences, if any.
I'll give this two days to vote, ending 6 PM PST (2 AM GMT, I believe) on the 2nd. I may cut it short if we get enough votes in quickly (25 or more by two days from now).
Party: Liberales
Coalition: Conservadores
Coalition Candidate: Antonio de Santa Rosa
Press Act: Yea
Industrialization Encouragement Act: Nay
I respect the President, but I fail to see how his policies have benefited Chile. I hope that the Conservadores will once again ally with the Liberales against the statist forces of the Nationalistas. I am willing to come to agreements on issues outside the economy; and I am certain my fellow Liberales are willing to compromise a bit for the good for Chile. I wholeheartedly support the Press Act, As for the final act, I oppose it on the basis that the government should get out of the way. However, I do support some portions of the bill.
I would like to propose the Voting Act of 1851, which would increase the voting franchise to the next level (I can't recall it's name). This move will help spur more growth, since the middle class will be more involved in government, and will promote a more balanced system, rather than one that favours the rich overall. As well, it will promote more immigration from more intelligent, better off foreigners, seeking a new life in the Americas.
Coalition: Conservadores
Coalition Candidate: Antonio de Santa Rosa
Press Act: Yea
Industrialization Encouragement Act: Nay
I respect the President, but I fail to see how his policies have benefited Chile. I hope that the Conservadores will once again ally with the Liberales against the statist forces of the Nationalistas. I am willing to come to agreements on issues outside the economy; and I am certain my fellow Liberales are willing to compromise a bit for the good for Chile. I wholeheartedly support the Press Act, As for the final act, I oppose it on the basis that the government should get out of the way. However, I do support some portions of the bill.
I would like to propose the Voting Act of 1851, which would increase the voting franchise to the next level (I can't recall it's name). This move will help spur more growth, since the middle class will be more involved in government, and will promote a more balanced system, rather than one that favours the rich overall. As well, it will promote more immigration from more intelligent, better off foreigners, seeking a new life in the Americas.
Last edited: