((I agree.... these Unity tickets definitely unbalance the electorate. 80% in the 1840's. and 3 to 1 here. They are unrealistic in those percentages, and such...))
-
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.
((Yeah. It seems that the Union parties tends to generally unify popular parties (although usually it looks like they are much less popular beforehand - maybe because politicians are undecided about which party to throw their support behind?) against unpopular ones. Maybe it should be only possible to make unity parties after dismal showings in the primaries (enough so that neither party looks like it has a chance alone) - although that could be hard to truly determine.))
((More confusingly, the Republicans were initially liberal (if we're including National Republicans and State's Republicans), then got on the conservative side of the table (during Williams' reluctance to pass through abolition and other liberal agendas in the Civil War, breaking off the New Democrats and Libertarians), then moved to the liberal side again (arguably so, at least, when the New Democrats were sort of "big business") then moved right again (as our meta-reactionary movement mostly chose to go Republican) and are now staunchly conservative ever since the Libertarians collapsed and the Federals (a more conservative group) rose to take their place. [all of these are the general trends - specific policies have overlapped and crossed over each other in terms of liberal-ness in various fields of reform and politics] ))
((Actually, the parties seem to cross both lines. Republicans are solidly market liberal (albeit on a constitutional, Founders, basis), antiwar, and limited government, which, given the time period, is solidly liberal. The Democrats are moreso progressive, pro-war, large government, and interventionist economic policies (i.e. market conservatism). The Federals are an odd party; they are more Republican in states' rights, and moderates on economic and government policies, but are solidly (but not entirely) in favour of war. So... it's not necessarily they changed views (except on war issues)... rather, they changed the direction, the reasoning for the policies. As well, the reforms are a mixture of both, and is quite odd; but possibly, the membership of the party's as it did historically (New England was Republican, South was Democratic; then switched)))
I support the Second Bill of Rights, as it provides necessary constitutional affirmation of the importance of social reform in the new century.
I don't think there's been any real legislation on it, though I myself did come to oppose conscription during the last campaigns of the Civil War, so I'd like to avoid it in the future if possible.
Despite your attempt to convince others of its futility, this is actually the point I think the 2nd Bill of Rights is trying to address. Successive liberals have tried to derail or otherwise make veiled threats to our federally-run social services. This amendment would remove the supposed constitutional rationale for their repeal.
((I actually disagree on this issue and not just because I just became the latest unity President. If we look at the history of the unity and mixed tickets I think you'll find they trend away from landslides victories.
First unity ticket: Cameron/McAttack
The SNP, a new challenger to the field, had superceded the Dems and was looking to take the votes of both parties. The Whigs had had a largely disappointing term in office and had just sacked their first president in the primaries. The unity ticket had every expectation of facing a tough fight.
First coalition ticket (arguably): Walsh/Gafferty (and the former SNP)
Needed to end the dominating streak the Whigs were on (3/4 of the elections since Jackson). This coalition of conservatives held for two elections -one of which they lost- until the SR vs DR made it moot and the conservatives went back to the sidelines.
Second and Third unity tickets - States Republicans and Democratic Republicans
Techincally unity tickets because they were both bipartisan and issues based. Proved to be the best thing in politics since legislating sliced bread and prevented it from being a boring Unionists and Confederates race.
Fourth and Fifth unity tickets - Republicans (with ND as VP) and New Democrats (with Libertarian as VP)
Jamous and I joined forces to counter what we perceived as the slam dunk election of the war winning, slave freeing, liberal incumbant. Williams sought to use Vallejo to get the war democrats on his side because he was seen as a radical liberal. This was an incredibly tight race that would have otherwise been as crushing a victory as Mandrake was last election.
I think it would be a mistake to remove the possibility of unity tickets, but I do admit that the formal coalition of two parties undermines what should be the fluid dynamic of backroom deals our three party system provides. Had not two very similar candidates been nominated concurrently, the coalition would not have been necessary to avoid dividing our common support base. We could not have anticipated the large drop in support the Republicans faced.
tl;dr Unity tickets good in the past, Coalition tickets not good for the future))
I don't think there's been any real legislation on it, though I myself did come to oppose conscription during the last campaigns of the Civil War, so I'd like to avoid it in the future if possible.
Despite your attempt to convince others of its futility, this is actually the point I think the 2nd Bill of Rights is trying to address. Successive liberals have tried to derail or otherwise make veiled threats to our federally-run social services. This amendment would remove the supposed constitutional rationale for their repeal.
((I actually disagree on this issue and not just because I just became the latest unity President. If we look at the history of the unity and mixed tickets I think you'll find they trend away from landslides victories.
First unity ticket: Cameron/McAttack
The SNP, a new challenger to the field, had superceded the Dems and was looking to take the votes of both parties. The Whigs had had a largely disappointing term in office and had just sacked their first president in the primaries. The unity ticket had every expectation of facing a tough fight.
First coalition ticket (arguably): Walsh/Gafferty (and the former SNP)
Needed to end the dominating streak the Whigs were on (3/4 of the elections since Jackson). This coalition of conservatives held for two elections -one of which they lost- until the SR vs DR made it moot and the conservatives went back to the sidelines.
Second and Third unity tickets - States Republicans and Democratic Republicans
Techincally unity tickets because they were both bipartisan and issues based. Proved to be the best thing in politics since legislating sliced bread and prevented it from being a boring Unionists and Confederates race.
Fourth and Fifth unity tickets - Republicans (with ND as VP) and New Democrats (with Libertarian as VP)
Jamous and I joined forces to counter what we perceived as the slam dunk election of the war winning, slave freeing, liberal incumbant. Williams sought to use Vallejo to get the war democrats on his side because he was seen as a radical liberal. This was an incredibly tight race that would have otherwise been as crushing a victory as Mandrake was last election.
I think it would be a mistake to remove the possibility of unity tickets, but I do admit that the formal coalition of two parties undermines what should be the fluid dynamic of backroom deals our three party system provides. Had not two very similar candidates been nominated concurrently, the coalition would not have been necessary to avoid dividing our common support base. We could not have anticipated the large drop in support the Republicans faced.
tl;dr Unity tickets good in the past, Coalition tickets not good for the future))
Last edited:
Okay. The arguments on the constitution need to be toned down. Rogov is making a good point when he says that should be left to politics forums.
From now on, unless it proposes something absolutely outrageous, it's constitutional. Outrageous is as defined by me.
Also, the "I am a true American, you are not argument", while not banned, is discouraged.
As for Unity tickets: They are not banned, but I will be more hesitant to approve them.
FYI, Women's suffrage is still basically at the point where Cameron left it. Their voting is more restricted than that of men, with women still having to have a written note of approval with them in order to vote, and even this system is only used in some Western and Northern states. Elsewhere, voting is still a men-only deal.
Also, ACAs are still on: [thread=562822]HERE.[/thread]
From now on, unless it proposes something absolutely outrageous, it's constitutional. Outrageous is as defined by me.
Also, the "I am a true American, you are not argument", while not banned, is discouraged.
As for Unity tickets: They are not banned, but I will be more hesitant to approve them.
FYI, Women's suffrage is still basically at the point where Cameron left it. Their voting is more restricted than that of men, with women still having to have a written note of approval with them in order to vote, and even this system is only used in some Western and Northern states. Elsewhere, voting is still a men-only deal.
Also, ACAs are still on: [thread=562822]HERE.[/thread]
I am happy to see all oppose conscription; forcing people into the army is a horrendous idea! It's bad for morale, creates horrible logistics problems, and I won't even discuss the ramifications on precedence!
((I wasn't necessarily saying my opponents were un-American; I was saying that the policies were against the principles of the founding of this nation, and that it would undermine this nation. I believe that Callahan believes his policies are firmly in the best interests of the American people; as do I. It's the key differences, the government as a provider, a regulator, a market player, and a non-interventionist, minimalist state, become the key issue.
I do see your point, komisha; however, 1840 was immensely one-sided, and the others until this last one, weren't unity tickets per se. They were more to allure other party members to them, rather than create a single party, which usually leads to excessively lopsided victories.
The election preceding the War, in my opinion, is the unique one; as both were unity parties; they countered each other, which is why the race was close.))
((I wasn't necessarily saying my opponents were un-American; I was saying that the policies were against the principles of the founding of this nation, and that it would undermine this nation. I believe that Callahan believes his policies are firmly in the best interests of the American people; as do I. It's the key differences, the government as a provider, a regulator, a market player, and a non-interventionist, minimalist state, become the key issue.
I do see your point, komisha; however, 1840 was immensely one-sided, and the others until this last one, weren't unity tickets per se. They were more to allure other party members to them, rather than create a single party, which usually leads to excessively lopsided victories.
The election preceding the War, in my opinion, is the unique one; as both were unity parties; they countered each other, which is why the race was close.))
((Ok
If the spanish-american war starts, I'd like to be in it.
I can see it now; William Leo conqueror of Cuba!))
If the spanish-american war starts, I'd like to be in it.
I can see it now; William Leo conqueror of Cuba!))
As for Mr. Khur, I have wondered if you have seen my recent pleas for my appointement to goverment? For some time I have considered and would readily accept a position as your assistant in the departement of State. I believe I would be best for the job considering my extensive travels and understanding of foreign cultures and peoples, as well as my views on the recent Cuban affair. I eagerly await your reply.
-Rep. Wiliam Leo
-Rep. Wiliam Leo
((Not only that but all four of the ticket candidates were probably the largest political figures of the era, with a bitter personal rivalry between them due to a complex backstory made for in my opinion by far the best election of this AAR))
I am sorry for such a late response on your request to assist in the Department of State. It has been tiring to set the nation right in the eyes of the rest of the world after such a disaster we have seen these past four years. I, regrettably, must decline your request. Though you have much experience with foreign cultures, your stance on Cuba will not do us any good. Diplomacy is the key, and I will not advise war unless there is absolutely no other choice.
((Yeah, 1857 also split up both "camps" more or less (the Whigs and Democrats/SNP), making for a desperate scramble as everyone tried to figure out which side was closer to their loyalties and policies. It was quite a fitting climax for the Whig and SNP era of politics.))
It looked like a tough need for a unity ticket from a subjective view, but there probably could have been ways we could have seen the overwhelming victory coming (some factors of political stances, primary support, etc. that weren't there when the unity parties and coalitions actually brought about tight races, exciting back room deals, and great struggles) - ways to see when unity tickets bring about a tight race and when a party will simply deflate. ))
((It didn't turn out to be a tough fight at all, though. The Whigs had, after all, gathered enough support to put King into office the last election - and Cameron as a moderate could be expected to keep that support (unless, I guess, the Democrats went more liberal - which they ended up doing several elections later - but that would hardly have disadvantaged the Whigs that much, especially as it would have lost some moderate/conservative Democrat support). The SNP's threat was greatly overestimated due to the speed of their rise, and it ended up as two large parties banding together against a tiny one.
It looked like a tough need for a unity ticket from a subjective view, but there probably could have been ways we could have seen the overwhelming victory coming (some factors of political stances, primary support, etc. that weren't there when the unity parties and coalitions actually brought about tight races, exciting back room deals, and great struggles) - ways to see when unity tickets bring about a tight race and when a party will simply deflate. ))
coinciding with Calahan's election promises I have fully prepared the Navy for missions against Spain should they be needed
They should not be needed, it would be best if the Navy stood down, else our relations with Great Britian and the North German Federation go sour.
Mr. President, as a patriotic American, I am offering the services of the shipyards of the Norfolk Shipping Company for any construction you might require. I am willing to offer a substantial discount in exchange for guaranteed contracts.
I am quite confused by this administration... they consider my negotiation policy weak, yet now they're engaging in just such a policy. They have promised to get the Rebels in four years, yet now they are relying in policies which they've said have failed for over a decade. I thought they would strong arm, use the navy, but now they fear angering Germany and Britain, which I said would happen.
I have yet to see how this administration is acting so differently from how mine would have been; perhaps they have decided that aggressive behaviour, their flamboyant tough-guy routine, will not work in the realm of diplomacy... hopefully this administration will not return to its old views of seizing the Rebels by any means necessary...
I have yet to see how this administration is acting so differently from how mine would have been; perhaps they have decided that aggressive behaviour, their flamboyant tough-guy routine, will not work in the realm of diplomacy... hopefully this administration will not return to its old views of seizing the Rebels by any means necessary...
indeed Mr. Jarvis that was also my view of this administration. It seems I am to be dissapointed
I believe these are decisions for the President to make not you Mr. Khur. Your policy pronouncements on possible war with Spain are not official policy.
Joseph Walker - Vice President