Voting is open
I just read the new timeline... @PoptartProdigy I like yours better and it delights me to no end to see Lind's revenge fantasy broken and subverted from a 'righteous revolution' to a 'proxy war'.
Hee! Thanks!
Well, I'd much rather play a game that's, you know, fun. But that's just me.
Gotta have challenge to have fun. From this fragile a start, it'd be unrealistic if there were no economic hiccups.
The latter, because it would be correct.

The core of the Constitution isn't its bill of rights, which is demonstrated by the fact that a significant faction of the people who drafted the Constitution didn't even want a bill of rights and thought it was pointless at best and harmful at worst. It's the creation of a presidential democracy based upon a loose federation of states with an (initially) weak central government. The Constitution isn't some aspirational document about the rights and privileges of man. It's a charter that organizes the method by which a state is governed. Constitutions are the equivalent of business charters or rule documents for nation-states.
MJ, I'm not talking about what the Constitution was drafted to achieve. I'm talking about the perceived ideological foundation of the United States of America, thus my use of that language. I mean, picture me asking you, with an audience of layfolk, "What is the ideological foundation of the United States?" If you say something about the Senate's structure and organization, they're going to be giving you very strange looks. Yes, the Senate is more functionally critical, but the important thing to the question I am asking is the reaction of the observers, and they're not going to care about the Senate.

Insofar as the Constitution is ideologically inspired, it is by the Enlightenment movement. It is into the ideas stemming from that movement and echoed in the Constitution that the option to retain broad pointers from the Constitution would tap. It draws legitimacy by tapping into that foundation. It's not for the sake of legality, and it frankly doesn't care that the history of the Bill of Rights was hardly as inspiring as many like to think; it's to appeal to the Revivalist sentiment.

Does that clarify what I'm saying?
What should it look like tho?
Erm, names and political affiliations, brief descriptions of personality. That'd be the minimum for handy reference.
 
So I am and I think a lot of people are also doing this, just voting for Left Leaning Ideals because Protectionist Policies are just plainly better for us at the present. I think people want to step back from the grand ideological ideas here. And look at the practical reality.

Whoever wins here wont have the power to set the course of this state for generations. Its baked in the vote itself that future governments can roll back whatever doesnt work. So maybe calm down? Go for the Protectionist Left Side right now to protect our economy, and then once we are in a much better position we can switch to the pro-business/trade ideals.
 
So, we shouldn't choose something on the basis that it's relatively untested in large scale?
I like SD, in that it tests it by applying them in certain industries, but it also doesn't outright subsidize them on all levels at the detriment of regular businesses.
So I am and I think a lot of people are also doing this, just voting for Left Leaning Ideals because Protectionist Policies are just plainly better for us at the present. I think people want to step back from the grand ideological ideas here. And look at the practical reality.

Whoever wins here wont have the power to set the course of this state for generations. Its baked in the vote itself that future governments can roll back whatever doesnt work. So maybe calm down? Go for the Protectionist Left Side right now to protect our economy, and then once we are in a much better position we can switch to the pro-business/trade ideals.
The thing is, that once they win, its pretty much over, theres no way anyone will be willing to go Less socialist.
 
The thing is, that once they win, its pretty much over, theres no way anyone will be willing to go Less socialist.
Why tho? The winning vote on goverment is this

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

Roll backs are inherently a measure we almost all agree on.
 
MJ, I'm not talking about what the Constitution was drafted to achieve. I'm talking about the perceived ideological foundation of the United States of America, thus my use of that language. I mean, picture me asking you, with an audience of layfolk, "What is the ideological foundation of the United States?" If you say something about the Senate's structure and organization, they're going to be giving you very strange looks. Yes, the Senate is more functionally critical, but the important thing to the question I am asking is the reaction of the observers, and they're not going to care about the Senate.

Insofar as the Constitution is ideologically inspired, it is by the Enlightenment movement. It is into the ideas stemming from that movement and echoed in the Constitution that the option to retain broad pointers from the Constitution would tap. It draws legitimacy by tapping into that foundation. It's not for the sake of legality, and it frankly doesn't care that the history of the Bill of Rights was hardly as inspiring as many like to think; it's to appeal to the Revivalist sentiment.

Does that clarify what I'm saying?
Ah. So in short, the Constitution vote could give less of a shit about the Articles and Amendments themselves; the Constitution vote is about the preamble.

Welp, my vote just did a literal 180.
 
The latter, i doubt all of the pro capitalists will come back...
Ya know all 6 of them.

I mean, the vote is close as is and a decent chunk of the socialist voters have soc-dem in their preferred options as well (and a chunk of us don't, but hey). Considering how close the vote is now, I think there's going to be give and take.
 
if a capitalist fails, mostly they're just back where they started, and can start a new business.
Yes, because when they lose almost all their investment they can just start over. I mean that might work Today for like a few dozens of capitalists, but not all of them can just take a fail.
 
Okay, seriously, last post.
Ah. So in short, the Constitution vote could give less of a shit about the Articles and Amendments themselves; the Constitution vote is about the preamble.
If the moderate option gave a shit about Articles and Amendments, it wouldn't be discarding them at all; that's what the hardline traditionalist option is for. It's about more than just the Preamble, though. It will be meant to evoke the Constitution, but not echo it.

The radical option, again, is deciding that there's really nothing in the Constitution that's of any value to you. With all of the political statement to your audience that implies.
 
The latter, because it would be correct.

The core of the Constitution isn't its bill of rights, which is demonstrated by the fact that a significant faction of the people who drafted the Constitution didn't even want a bill of rights and thought it was pointless at best and harmful at worst. It's the creation of a presidential democracy based upon a loose federation of states with an (initially) weak central government. The Constitution isn't some aspirational document about the rights and privileges of man. It's a charter that organizes the method by which a state is governed. Constitutions are the equivalent of business charters or rule documents for nation-states.
Saying those are the legal concepts that would be carried over into a rewritten constitution is demonstrably flawed. How can voting for it mean that there'll be "a loose federation of states with an (initially) weak central government" if we can vote to have a unitary government in which there are no states? How can voting for the rewritten constitution mean having a Senate which affords equal representation to all states if there won't necessarily even be states?
 
[X][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.

[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 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][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][POWER] You are a centralized unitary state with no subordinate governments.

[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 old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.

[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.

Approval voting is great.
 
if you look at everything from the leftist viewpoint
Aren't you claiming to be a social democrat? 'Cos that's a left position, especially in a place like the OTL United States.

And besides EVERYONE is suppose to work? If your not working what else would you be doing?
Whatever you wanted to? I mean, I love working at anime conventions. It's exhausting, frantic, frustrating unpaid work wrangling guests and attendees and cosplayer drama nonstop for three or four whole days and I dearly love every second of it, knowing that the people I work with are badass pros and we manage to pull off the impossible every frickin' year. If I didn't have to worry about working a straight job to pay for food, rent, insurance and internet that's what I'd be doing with my life: enjoying it. Living only to work is dull misery that I'm surprised anybody's okay with.

Gotta have challenge to have fun. From this fragile a start, it'd be unrealistic if there were no economic hiccups.
Uh huh. Mate, I'm in this to punch plaid Nazis and slip as many science fiction references as I can into our bouncing baby socialist experiment. I ain't here to be railroaded because you've decided we chose the wrong setup. If I wanted to be shit on from on high because I'm Doing It Wrong, I can get back to posting my fanfic. (Probably should do that anyway, past due on the next chapter. Anyway.) So, you know, fair warning.
 
Yes, because when they lose almost all their investment they can just start over. I mean that might work Today for like a few dozens of capitalists, but not all of them can just take a fail.

Capitalists, for anything remotely substantial aren't usually risking mostly their own money, nor are they personally responsible for the companies debt.
 
Like 90% of the SD vote is also for Socialist, its just that since its approval they can also vote for SD, I wonder just what it'd look like if we couldn't vote for every option. Though you could be right, i just find it highly unlikely.

It could be blowout for socialism, but it could also be a blowout for soc-dem.
 
Funny thing I noticed... the Socialist Vote Sum is greater than the Social Democrat Vote Sum by a margin narrower than the New Capitalist Vote Sum.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top