Coalition to Protect Preferential Voting

[MarkDel]

I have to confess guys, as a new person in this fantasy election game, I am very, very confused by the UAC. Near as I can tell, it looks like a coalition designed solely to gain more power at the expense of any coherent and consistent ideology. I don't see how some of the more left wing members can endorse parts of the platform, and I don't see how some of the more right wing members can endorse other parts of the platform. And I have seen everyone from hard right conservatives to quasi-marxists say they are members of the UAC, so there is something very unrealistic going on here.

[MarkDel]

The UAC has quasi marxists?

Okay...groucho...come foward...NOW!

Well, NickG is one that comes to mind off the top of my head. Do you have complete list of UAC party members for me to look at?

[MarkDel]

I don't, but I don't believe NickG is a UAC member...United Left if I recall.

OK, I thought he was. So who are the members?

[MarkDel]

Andrew, do you have a roster? maybe Don or JFK do.

Bull,

Don't go to any trouble, I already joined the Republicans a few days ago when I joined the Fantasy Forum. I really considered joining the UAC until I saw your Platform...you guys state a lot of positions without generally TAKING a position on far too many issues.

[MarkDel]

Mr. Fresh,

Thanks. I actually don't agree with you guys on everything, but at least you TAKE A STAND on some controversial issues.

[MarkDel]

Don,

OK, but please explain to me the VAGUE language in your platform in respect to...

The Death Penalty
Immigration
AND YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION IRAQ let alone state a position. Instead you give some vague, quasi-supportive statement about endorsing the War on Terror.

[MarkDel]

Don,

Here's what you left out on your Immigration Policy..."We encourage tougher screening of people entering this country in order to provide security to all Americans. However, this should not hinder the efforts of peaceful people to enter this country."

What in the world does that mean? Peaceful people? Entering how? Legally? Illegally? Both? Are you going to have a tough immigration policy or not?

As for the Death Penalty, the last line is some sort of vague attempt to say that you would only execute people who were REALLY guilty!!! The legal standard for guilt or innocence for all criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" so mentioning it when you say you support the Death Penalty implies some sort of ambivalence about its application. Either you support it or not, but your statement sounds like guilt ridden support.

And as for Iraq, well...you explained that one in an honest fashion, but it would make a helluva lot more sense to take a real position.

[MarkDel]

Don,

Yes, but that sort of editorializing weakens a Platform. Either you are for the Death Penalty or not...the legal standard of guilt and innocence is very, very clear and does not need to be restated for it makes it look like you are not taking a position.

And I don't want to turn our borders into bloodbaths either, but your Platform doesn't really tell me what your actual policy is. It sounds all warm and fuzzy while being tough at the same time, but how would it function in practice?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I believe specificity is something voters are entitled to even if both current parties don't seem to think so.

[MarkDel]

The AFRNC platform as published on its web site does not even address Immigration policy.  How do we know that their policy is?

Don,

Yes, but that sort of editorializing weakens a Platform. Either you are for the Death Penalty or not...the legal standard of guilt and innocence is very, very clear and does not need to be restated for it makes it look like you are not taking a position.

And I don't want to turn our borders into bloodbaths either, but your Platform doesn't really tell me what your actual policy is. It sounds all warm and fuzzy while being tough at the same time, but how would it function in practice?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I believe specificity is something voters are entitled to even if both current parties don't seem to think so.

Don,

Good point. I'd like to help them clean their Platform up a little if someone in their party asked me.

[MarkDel]

Mark,

I know some of the platform is vague.  The reason is that our members have a hard time agreeing on positions on specific issues.

Sometimes our members cut one way, sometimes the other way.  Me for example, I'm a little bit for big government, but not so socially liberal.  Someone else is socially liberal but economically conservative (Andrew, KEmperor).

We are all centrist, even though we don't always agree on specific issues.  It is inherently difficult to write a platform for people who are all centrist, but not always in agreement.

John,

I certainly understand the inherent difficulty of putting together a "coalition" party as opposed to an ideological one, but you guys would have been better off compromising on some positions rather than trying to state both sides in an effort to make everyone happy. It creates the impression of uncertainty, and I always found that troubling.

[MarkDel]

Oh, and let there be no doubt, the major players in the UAC were almost exclusively for the war in Iraq.  President Gustaf, out highest rankiing elected official was for it, and our next highest ranking official, Senator PPT Kennedy was for it.  I am the Secretary of Defense, the most prominent foreign policy person in the Party, and I was for it.  We aren't very wishy washy for the most part.

So who was the lone dissenter who made you guys plead the Fifth?

[MarkDel]

The AFRNC platform as published on its web site does not even address Immigration policy.  How do we know that their policy is?

Don,

By the way, I should point out that I probably agree with UAC on just as many issues as I do the Republicans, in fact I disagree with them big-time on a number of issues, but their unambivalent statements are refreshing and their support of the Bush Doctrine was the clincher for me.