Voting is open
[x][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[x][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[x][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[x][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[x][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
[x][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
[X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.

[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[X][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.

[X][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
@Rat King @Simon_Jester
I think an AR-15 variant or M1/M14 variant are the most plausible as a standard issue rifle. IIRC those are the most common rifles in the entire US, with first AR-15 variants (like the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and Ruger AR-556) taking the top spot, and as such would be the easiest to obtain, manufacture, maintain, and supply.
 
For those people voting for "the constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through" be informed that you are literally voting for the absolute worst possible option.

The primary problem with the Constitution isn't in its amendments or in its vagueness. Those are certainly problems yes, but the fundamental problem is that the entire thing was designed to try to unify an extremely loose group of states separated by the practice of slavery and cultural origin in an 18th century context. Furthermore they did so by creating a system where you had two separately elected bodies, the executive (through the president) and the legislature which both could simultaneously claim to speak to the people and could result in divided government.

To make things worse, because of how easy the constitution makes it to shut down the government's ability to do anything as long as you control one of the branches of government. This is one of the 'legal concepts integral to it.' The constitution's ability to fail-to-safe, despite the fact that in most situations you really really don't want your government "failing safe" because there are a lot of situations where some action, even if bad, is preferable to no action.

I don't blame them for this-at the time they wrote it they hardly would know that basically every presidential democracy with two exceptions (the US being one) has failed within 50 years of its founding-but that doesn't mean we should make their mistakes again when given an opportunity to start fresh.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there will be a shift in politics (in-universe of course because the audience is not likely to change) if and when we incorporate new territories that hold different views from the Chicago mainstream such as explicitly communist communes or states with highly conservative populations.

Question to the OP @PoptartProdigy How weakened would be the Victorians be if the Russians Empire suddenly stopped supporting them for whatever reason? Would they collapse in a week, be significantly weakened but carry on, or act like nothing happened?
 
[x][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[x][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[x][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[x][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[x][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
[x][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
[ X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure

[X][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for all citizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.

[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[X][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need

[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[x][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.

[X][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
[X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.

[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[X][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
 
I'm in favor of going radical on the constitution, for many of the same reasons a MJ.
Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:51 PM, finished with 162 posts and 76 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:54 PM, finished with 163 posts and 76 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM, finished with 164 posts and 76 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:59 PM, finished with 165 posts and 76 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:10 PM, finished with 169 posts and 78 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:11 PM, finished with 169 posts and 78 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:16 PM, finished with 171 posts and 78 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:22 PM, finished with 171 posts and 78 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 5:54 PM, finished with 217 posts and 85 votes.
 
[X][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for all citizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.

[X][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[X][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.

[X][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
[x][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[x][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[x][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[x][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[x][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
 
Last edited:
For those people voting for "the constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through" be informed that you are literally voting for the absolute worst possible option.

The primary problem with the Constitution isn't in its amendments or in its vagueness. Those are certainly problems yes, but the fundamental problem is that the entire thing was designed to try to unify an extremely loose group of states separated by the practice of slavery and cultural origin in an 18th century context. Furthermore they did so by creating a system where you had two separately elected bodies, the executive (through the president) and the legislature which both could simultaneously claim to speak to the people and could result in divided government.

To make things worse, because of how easy the constitution makes it to shut down the government's ability to do anything as long as you control one of the branches of government. This is one of the 'legal concepts integral to it.' The constitution's ability to fail-to-safe, despite the fact that in most situations you really really don't want your government "failing safe" because there are a lot of situations where some action, even if bad, is preferable to no action.

I don't blame them for this-at the time they wrote it they hardly would know that basically every presidential democracy with two exceptions (the US being one) has failed within 50 years of its founding-but that doesn't mean we should make their mistakes again when given an opportunity to start fresh.

So you're saying that instead of going "We're the old America but better, and Redder.", we go all in on "THE NEW AMERICAN PHEONIX, WITH A YET MORE PERFECT DEMOCRACY!"?

Play up the Legal break with the past more? Perhaps draw on other sources of legitimacy and relegate the old 1787 Constitution to the status of Magna Carta?
 
[x][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[x][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[x][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[x][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[x][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
Adhoc vote count started by Lupercal on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:26 PM, finished with 152 posts and 75 votes.
 
Last edited:
For those people voting for "the constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through" be informed that you are literally voting for the absolute worst possible option.

The primary problem with the Constitution isn't in its amendments or in its vagueness. Those are certainly problems yes, but the fundamental problem is that the entire thing was designed to try to unify an extremely loose group of states separated by the practice of slavery and cultural origin in an 18th century context. Furthermore they did so by creating a system where you had two separately elected bodies, the executive (through the president) and the legislature which both could simultaneously claim to speak to the people and could result in divided government.

To make things worse, because of how easy the constitution makes it to shut down the government's ability to do anything as long as you control one of the branches of government. This is one of the 'legal concepts integral to it.' The constitution's ability to fail-to-safe, despite the fact that in most situations you really really don't want your government "failing safe" because there are a lot of situations where some action, even if bad, is preferable to no action.[/i]
I'm not going to categorically disagree with this, it's a perfectly valid criticism.

The thing is... for the foreseeable future Chicago is likely to be more united than divided politically, because of the pressing need to expand, rebuild, and defeat Victoria and foreign influence. We're unlikely to attain a state where we have the level of complacency it takes for a US-style government to become truly deadlocked, in my opinion.

Alternatively, we could include a few constitutional amendments that, say, explicitly eliminate the presidential veto as anti-democratic or prune back the vote required to override the veto to a 60% or 55% majority, require either chamber of the legislature to give bills passed by the other chamber a straight up-or-down vote, and otherwise simply remove some of the features that were most prone to create deadlock in the old United States.

Remember, at least three constitutional amendments radically altered key parts of the basic governmental machinery of the United States: the Twelfth, Seventeenth, and Twenty-Fifth. We could do that too.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying that instead of going "We're the old America but better, and Redder.", we go all in on "THE NEW AMERICAN PHEONIX, WITH A YET MORE PERFECT DEMOCRACY!"?

Play up the Legal break with the past more? Perhaps draw on other sources of legitimacy and relegate the old 1787 Constitution to the status of Magna Carta?

Basically, yes.

Either just keep the old 1787 constitution because the rot in the US constitution goes to its core or throw it out. The middle ground is probably the worst possible option. It's literally compromise for the sake of compromise, where you get the weaknesses of both and the strengths of neither.

I mean, the whole "keep the US constitution as is" is basically an abdication of responsibility towards the future generations, where you go "yeah we know this shit is fucked and unworkable but you can deal with it after we're all dead kids good luck losers" but hey, people do that all the time. And there is at least maximum short-term gain for it.

Going full on and writing a fundamentally different arrangement for the government would sacrifice some short term benefits but long-term would provide significantly better governance.
 
what about it makes you leery?

I'll be honest, it confuses me that the idea of workers being able to have a voice in the decisions their workplace makes makes you leery and I don't really understand why.
Understanding that I said "feel leery", and I'm clearly not jumping up and down screaming here....

This scenario (family-founded and funded farm) is very real, it's one my aunt and uncle have right now. They took on enormous financial responsibility and risk to get this chicken farm running with the modern tools and tech. They're pros at doing this, they've been running farms and raising chickens for decades.

But the description you all are giving makes it sound like a handful of 20-somethings could start working part-time, and take over and shut them out. Yes it's democratic in a sense, but it's massively unfair to the people who've done the most, and leaves them in a rather precarious and uncomfortable position.
 
For those people voting for "the constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through" be informed that you are literally voting for the absolute worst possible option.

The primary problem with the Constitution isn't in its amendments or in its vagueness. Those are certainly problems yes, but the fundamental problem is that the entire thing was designed to try to unify an extremely loose group of states separated by the practice of slavery and cultural origin in an 18th century context. Furthermore they did so by creating a system where you had two separately elected bodies, the executive (through the president) and the legislature which both could simultaneously claim to speak to the people and could result in divided government.

To make things worse, because of how easy the constitution makes it to shut down the government's ability to do anything as long as you control one of the branches of government. This is one of the 'legal concepts integral to it.' The constitution's ability to fail-to-safe, despite the fact that in most situations you really really don't want your government "failing safe" because there are a lot of situations where some action, even if bad, is preferable to no action.

I don't blame them for this-at the time they wrote it they hardly would know that basically every presidential democracy with two exceptions (the US being one) has failed within 50 years of its founding-but that doesn't mean we should make their mistakes again when given an opportunity to start fresh.
I have to say that I'm not really convinced by this.

@PoptartProdigy Can you please clarify whether the "legal concepts" of the US constitution refer to things like the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, as well as nature of the Legislature as a necessarily Bicameral one? Or, are the constitution's "legal concepts" instead meant to refer to things like the right to free speech, religious freedom, and so forth?

I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, particularly given that US constitution was explicitly tied to a Federal model of government, whereas we're deciding that stuff in a separate vote. After all, complaining about the overrepresentation of small states in the Senate would be a bit absurd if there weren't even any States, and only a single unitary government.
 
Last edited:
Basically, yes.

Either just keep the old 1787 constitution because the rot in the US constitution goes to its core or throw it out. The middle ground is probably the worst possible option. It's literally compromise for the sake of compromise, where you get the weaknesses of both and the strengths of neither.

I mean, the whole "keep the US constitution as is" is basically an abdication of responsibility towards the future generations, where you go "yeah we know this shit is fucked and unworkable but you can deal with it after we're all dead kids good luck losers" but hey, people do that all the time. And there is at least maximum short-term gain for it.

Going full on and writing a fundamentally different arrangement for the government would sacrifice some short term benefits but long-term would provide significantly better governance.

You make a convincing case for moving towards the radical position.

And in the end nothing is more legitimate than victory. Afterall whoever unifies America becomes America. If Victoria controlled the entire continental US, everyone would call them "The Americans" no matter what they called themselves.

It would be pure sentimentality to keep the old Constitution to a substantial degree. On the other hand, sentimentality is a very powerful force. (And back to the first hand, it's been literally generations since "America" died, people would welcome back "America" even if the details and forms are changed as long as the American people no longer live in fear of warlords and roving reactionary death squads.)
 
Last edited:
Upon reviewing the arguments put forward I'm also changing my vote on the Constitution to "scrap and start over".
 
I'm not going to categorically disagree with this, it's a perfectly valid criticism.

The thing is... for the foreseeable future Chicago is likely to be more united than divided politically, because of the pressing need to expand, rebuild, and defeat Victoria and foreign influence. We're unlikely to attain a state where we have the level of complacency it takes for a US-style government to become truly deadlocked, in my opinion.

Alternatively, we could include a few constitutional amendments that, say, explicitly eliminate the presidential veto as anti-democratic, require either chamber of the legislature to give bills passed by the other chamber a straight up-or-down vote, and otherwise simply remove some of the features that were most prone to create deadlock in the old United States.

Remember, at least three constitutional amendments radically altered key parts of the basic governmental machinery of the United States: the Twelfth, Seventeenth, and Twenty-Fifth.

Dude, back in the 1930s various leftist groups literally backed Nazis over other slightly different leftists when they knew full well the Nazis were probably an existential threat and definitely were out to kill them. Victoria? Those are your competitors and rivals. Those fuckers over there with slightly different views? They're your enemies.

Fundamentally all of this tweaking along the edges doesn't fix the core issue, which is simply that the US constitution, by its very nature, allows you to declare very loudly that the government "isn't your government." It weakens the ability of the government to speak with one voice by distributing the 'public will' so broadly and giving so many independent branches that can all claim to speak with the authority of the people and that is basically core to the intent of the constitution.

And yes, in theory you could amend the constitution to say anything. You could write an amendment which says "all prior provisions of the constitution no longer have any force or effect and cannot be considered law." But the amendments you actually need to fix the problems with the US constitution require you to basically gut it and start from scratch. Which is exactly the option I'm saying people should vote for, and it's the best option if you care about the long term. If you don't, well, just vote for keeping the US constitution, it'll probably only start to really implode 70-80 years from then and you'll have won. The human cost is for the next generation to pay.
 
Basically, yes.

Either just keep the old 1787 constitution because the rot in the US constitution goes to its core or throw it out. The middle ground is probably the worst possible option. It's literally compromise for the sake of compromise, where you get the weaknesses of both and the strengths of neither.

I mean, the whole "keep the US constitution as is" is basically an abdication of responsibility towards the future generations, where you go "yeah we know this shit is fucked and unworkable but you can deal with it after we're all dead kids good luck losers" but hey, people do that all the time. And there is at least maximum short-term gain for it.

Going full on and writing a fundamentally different arrangement for the government would sacrifice some short term benefits but long-term would provide significantly better governance.
I mean, what are the top five specific things that are objectively wrong with the US Constitution as it stood in amended form circa 2000, specifically?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying "there aren't any, I dare you to name five." I'm pointing out that if we did specify five or ten such features, it would be a relatively simple matter to fix them with a Bill of Bugfix equivalent to the Bill of Rights, if we're in the kind of position where a constitutional convention is even politically viable in the first place.
 
Last edited:
[x][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for allcitizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[x][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[x][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[x][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.

[x][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top