TPTTAA Poll - Would you support a united Conservative party?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

My Proposal:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User_talk:Nickjbor

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In what sense? If such a party existed I would wholeheartedly support it, but I would be strongly opposed to the RPP & POP merging. IRV & STV mean that the division has no real electoral effect & this division is the main thing (as slight as it may be) that is currently saving Atlasia from duopolistic hell.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

    In what sense? If such a party existed I would wholeheartedly support it, but I would be strongly opposed to the RPP & POP merging. IRV & STV mean that the division has no real electoral effect & this division is the main thing (as slight as it may be) that is currently saving Atlasia from duopolistic hell.

IRV/STV regardless, I think a united party would allow conservatives to take control of Atlasia for the first time since it's creation, and to start to implement changes that have never been thought of before and thus, get the game moving once more.

I don't know if the parties should "merge" per se, but if we cannot get the support of the clear majority from both parties, creating a new party will only serve to divide us, not unite us. If you understand what I'm saying.
Also, I've edited the first post to include my basic proposal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In what sense? If such a party existed I would wholeheartedly support it, but I would be strongly opposed to the RPP & POP merging. IRV & STV mean that the division has no real electoral effect & this division is the main thing (as slight as it may be) that is currently saving Atlasia from duopolistic hell.

IRV/STV regardless, I think a united party would allow conservatives to take control of Atlasia for the first time since it's creation, and to start to implement changes that have never been thought of before and thus, get the game moving once more.

I don't know if the parties should "merge" per se, but if we cannot get the support of the clear majority from both parties, creating a new party will only serve to divide us, not unite us. If you understand what I'm saying.
Also, I've edited the first post to include my basic proposal.

     One capital idea to get Atlasia moving would be to contest every Senatorial & Gubernatorial race. The RPP once attempted that, but it was ultimately derailed for reasons that I do not recall.

[SPC]

If the Regional Protection Party still adhered to regionalism rather than conservatism, I would be willing to join again. Otherwise, it would be an unsustainable "Opposition" Party

[tpfkaw]

Logo proposal:

[Barnes]

Eh, not really, and I don't mean that form a political standpoint.

I just think that the more parties the better. And besides, our electoral system doesn't really hurt any party.

[Yelnoc]

As a political moderate, I would support a radical restructuring that involved the merging of the conservative elements amongst the Populares and Regional Protection Party while the moderates of those two parties and the JCP formed a third party.  In practice, keep it as is.  Three parties are more interesting as two and neither party is hurt by the existence of a second conservative party so long as they agree to always second preference the other party's candidate.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No

[Associate Justice PiT]

As a political moderate, I would support a radical restructuring that involved the merging of the conservative elements amongst the Populares and Regional Protection Party while the moderates of those two parties and the JCP formed a third party.  In practice, keep it as is.  Three parties are more interesting as two and neither party is hurt by the existence of a second conservative party so long as they agree to always second preference the other party's candidate.

     Though liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative is a pretty thoroughly tried breakdown that has consistently led to really boring elections, since the liberals & conservatives will both clearly prefer the moderates to each other & a moderate declaring for any office usually managed to avoid having any opponents. One party breakdown that could be very interesting would be liberals vs. populists vs. conservatives vs. libertarians.

[Vepres]

As a political moderate, I would support a radical restructuring that involved the merging of the conservative elements amongst the Populares and Regional Protection Party while the moderates of those two parties and the JCP formed a third party.  In practice, keep it as is.  Three parties are more interesting as two and neither party is hurt by the existence of a second conservative party so long as they agree to always second preference the other party's candidate.

     Though liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative is a pretty thoroughly tried breakdown that has consistently led to really boring elections, since the liberals & conservatives will both clearly prefer the moderates to each other & a moderate declaring for any office usually managed to avoid having any opponents. One party breakdown that could be very interesting would be liberals vs. populists vs. conservatives vs. libertarians.

The problem is we only have a handful of social cons that would want to run for office.

[Associate Justice PiT]

As a political moderate, I would support a radical restructuring that involved the merging of the conservative elements amongst the Populares and Regional Protection Party while the moderates of those two parties and the JCP formed a third party.  In practice, keep it as is.  Three parties are more interesting as two and neither party is hurt by the existence of a second conservative party so long as they agree to always second preference the other party's candidate.

     Though liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative is a pretty thoroughly tried breakdown that has consistently led to really boring elections, since the liberals & conservatives will both clearly prefer the moderates to each other & a moderate declaring for any office usually managed to avoid having any opponents. One party breakdown that could be very interesting would be liberals vs. populists vs. conservatives vs. libertarians.

The problem is we only have a handful of social cons that would want to run for office.

     Yeah, that's the issue. There isn't really enough populists to sustain a remotely competitive party on their own.

[big bad fab]

Nope, the new party would lose members from both the former ones.

1+1 is unfortunately < 2...

Real France is exactly facing this for some years now !

Let's have electoral alliances if need be and it's fine like that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the Regional Protection Party still adhered to regionalism rather than conservatism, I would be willing to join again. Otherwise, it would be an unsustainable "Opposition" Party

What does this mean?

I think that your misinterpretation of the party is significantly due to the reason that you have not been in it since late 2009 and thus you missed what I and others have done since then. I have betrayed nothing of what this party was initially formed for. One of those who wanted us to abandon Regions and become a Euro-style conservative party is actually the founder of your current party.

     In what sense? If such a party existed I would wholeheartedly support it, but I would be strongly opposed to the RPP & POP merging. IRV & STV mean that the division has no real electoral effect & this division is the main thing (as slight as it may be) that is currently saving Atlasia from duopolistic hell.

IRV/STV regardless, I think a united party would allow conservatives to take control of Atlasia for the first time since it's creation, and to start to implement changes that have never been thought of before and thus, get the game moving once more.

I don't know if the parties should "merge" per se, but if we cannot get the support of the clear majority from both parties, creating a new party will only serve to divide us, not unite us. If you understand what I'm saying.
Also, I've edited the first post to include my basic proposal.

This idea is not a very wise one in my opinion. Atleast at this time.  The strength of the Right is best preserved under the current setup. A united party would lose about 1/3 of the RPP's current members would a unified party occur tomorrow.

Essentially what my French friend, BBF said.

There is nothing about the current setup that is preventing us from winning. These election results prove that. In fact I think it maximizes them more then a united party would.

[SPC]

If the Regional Protection Party still adhered to regionalism rather than conservatism, I would be willing to join again. Otherwise, it would be an unsustainable "Opposition" Party

What does this mean?

I think that your misinterpretation of the party is significantly due to the reason that you have not been in it since late 2009 and thus you missed what I and others have done since then. I have betrayed nothing of what this party was initially formed for. One of those who wanted us to abandon Regions and become a Euro-style conservative party is actually the founder of your current party.

Yes, but that founder has been banned, and the overwhelming majority of the Populares favors political libertarianism. The last time I recall the Regional Protection Party actually doing something to directly promote regions' rights was when the Dirty South passed the Currency bill. The party was initially founded for the abolition of at-large senate seats and the regional assumption of powers currently held by the feds. Aside from the development of regional assemblies, there hasn't been much progress toward that goal.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

There does not seem to be enough of a consensus towards this goal, therefore TPTTAA is closing this poll.