Spamage for President HQ: Thank you.

[ZuWo]

First of all, I am very disappointed by Senator TNF's post in this thread. Atlasia can and should do better than this.

That being said, I don't know whether there will be a Federalist primary like last time but you have my endorsement for now!

Atlasia should do better than questioning candidates about their prior job performance?

You can, but it's possible to do that without such levels of viciousness. As others have eloquently put it in this thread, such behavior drives people out of the game.

[Flake]

First of all, I am very disappointed by Senator TNF's post in this thread. Atlasia can and should do better than this.

That being said, I don't know whether there will be a Federalist primary like last time but you have my endorsement for now!

Atlasia should do better than questioning candidates about their prior job performance?

You can, but it's possible to do that without such levels of viciousness. As others have eloquently put it in this thread, such behavior drives people out of the game.

Exactly, you don't have to be such a ding dong because of your disagreements with Spamage.

[Enderman]

About time Spammy!!! I have a few ideas for the VP: JerryAr is first in my mind... Spamage/ZuWo would sound odd, but cool... Spamage/Supersonic could rally up some Mid-East and IDS votes at the same time (F-TN), Had Dereich lost the election, he could've easily be your VP... ElectionsGuy/Waukesha County could be a good place to find another option... And JBrase should definitely get at least a mention... I don't know how Goldwater feels right now, but he could be an option...

[Flake]

I think I would probably vote for a Spamage/JerryArkansas, a Spamage/Sbane, or a Spamage/Waukesha County ticket. It just depends on who the running mate is for Spamage, who wins in the Labor primary, and if someone from the Progressive side is running, especially if it's the two that I really want to run.

[PJ]

What is your position on unions?

[Lincoln Republican]

First of all, I am very disappointed by Senator TNF's post in this thread. Atlasia can and should do better than this.

That being said, I don't know whether there will be a Federalist primary like last time but you have my endorsement for now!

Cry me a river.

[Spamage]

What is your position on unions?

While I believe that Unions are legal and should be allowed, I don't believe membership should be mandatory for a variety of reasons.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

What reasons?

I am very torn on this issue myself. Most of what I've been reading shows that the economic impacts of Right to Work are rather muddled. The jobs growth argument, to me, is slightly deceptive. During different periods of time, union-shop states and Right to Work states have both held the distinction of being the regions with better growth. I think that fact alone kind of neutralizes the arguments in favour of Right to Work. On the other hand, the argument from organized labour isn't much better: While wages are visibly higher in states with mandatory union membership, the cost of living is also very high. In the end, it works out so that the "real income" isn't much different between either labour structure.

So to me, the economic arguments are rather moot. I err on the side of wanting to give individuals the freedom not to be forced into joining an organization with which they don't agree, but by the same token, I don't think it's unfair to call Right to Work anything other than an attack on organized labour. Why would anyone want to pay union dues when they can just mooch off the accomplishments of the union at their workplace anyway? They wouldn't. As such, membership declines, the unions lose whatever influence they once had, and the workers no longer have a voice. I think it's a serious consideration, not just in terms of wages and benefits, but also in terms of workplace safety.

I like the Rand Formula in Canada. It permits dues check-off, but it also holds that a worker does not have to affiliate with the union at his or her workplace. I guess it's slightly superficial if you're still paying into the activities of the union, but the person would still have the "right to work" if the union decided its workers were going to strike. How else do you balance freedom of association with the reality that unions benefit all workers at a workplace?

[Flake]

What reasons?

I am very torn on this issue myself. Most of what I've been reading shows that the economic impacts of Right to Work are rather muddled. The jobs growth argument, to me, is slightly deceptive. During different periods of time, union-shop states and Right to Work states have both held the distinction of being the regions with better growth. I think that fact alone kind of neutralizes the arguments in favour of Right to Work. On the other hand, the argument from organized labour isn't much better: While wages are visibly higher in states with mandatory union membership, the cost of living is also very high. In the end, it works out so that the "real income" isn't much different between either labour structure.

So to me, the economic arguments are rather moot. I err on the side of wanting to give individuals the freedom not to be forced into joining an organization with which they don't agree, but by the same token, I don't think it's unfair to call Right to Work anything other than an attack on organized labour. Why would anyone want to pay union dues when they can just mooch off the accomplishments of the union at their workplace anyway? They wouldn't. As such, membership declines, the unions lose whatever influence they once had, and the workers no longer have a voice. I think it's a serious consideration, not just in terms of wages and benefits, but also in terms of workplace safety.

I like the Rand Formula in Canada. It permits dues check-off, but it also holds that a worker does not have to affiliate with the union at his or her workplace. I guess it's slightly superficial if you're still paying into the activities of the union, but the person would still have the "right to work" if the union decided its workers were going to strike. How else do you balance freedom of association with the reality that unions benefit all workers at a workplace?

[Spamage]

What reasons?

I am very torn on this issue myself. Most of what I've been reading shows that the economic impacts of Right to Work are rather muddled. The jobs growth argument, to me, is slightly deceptive. During different periods of time, union-shop states and Right to Work states have both held the distinction of being the regions with better growth. I think that fact alone kind of neutralizes the arguments in favour of Right to Work. On the other hand, the argument from organized labour isn't much better: While wages are visibly higher in states with mandatory union membership, the cost of living is also very high. In the end, it works out so that the "real income" isn't much different between either labour structure.

So to me, the economic arguments are rather moot. I err on the side of wanting to give individuals the freedom not to be forced into joining an organization with which they don't agree, but by the same token, I don't think it's unfair to call Right to Work anything other than an attack on organized labour. Why would anyone want to pay union dues when they can just mooch off the accomplishments of the union at their workplace anyway? They wouldn't. As such, membership declines, the unions lose whatever influence they once had, and the workers no longer have a voice. I think it's a serious consideration, not just in terms of wages and benefits, but also in terms of workplace safety.

I like the Rand Formula in Canada. It permits dues check-off, but it also holds that a worker does not have to affiliate with the union at his or her workplace. I guess it's slightly superficial if you're still paying into the activities of the union, but the person would still have the "right to work" if the union decided its workers were going to strike. How else do you balance freedom of association with the reality that unions benefit all workers at a workplace?

A society without Unions would be in worse shape as would a society that openly attacks and prohibits unions (late 1800's and early 1900's). As having worked minimum wage earlier in my life I understand that problems of a lack of benefits and low wages. I in no way am opposed to Unions, its the principle of forced membership. Unions have a historic place in Atlasia, and will likely have a future in this nation, but I do indeed know several people who oppose being forced into the Unions. The Rand Formula is something I'll be looking into, as it sounds quite reasonable to me.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

What reasons?

I am very torn on this issue myself. Most of what I've been reading shows that the economic impacts of Right to Work are rather muddled. The jobs growth argument, to me, is slightly deceptive. During different periods of time, union-shop states and Right to Work states have both held the distinction of being the regions with better growth. I think that fact alone kind of neutralizes the arguments in favour of Right to Work. On the other hand, the argument from organized labour isn't much better: While wages are visibly higher in states with mandatory union membership, the cost of living is also very high. In the end, it works out so that the "real income" isn't much different between either labour structure.

So to me, the economic arguments are rather moot. I err on the side of wanting to give individuals the freedom not to be forced into joining an organization with which they don't agree, but by the same token, I don't think it's unfair to call Right to Work anything other than an attack on organized labour. Why would anyone want to pay union dues when they can just mooch off the accomplishments of the union at their workplace anyway? They wouldn't. As such, membership declines, the unions lose whatever influence they once had, and the workers no longer have a voice. I think it's a serious consideration, not just in terms of wages and benefits, but also in terms of workplace safety.

I like the Rand Formula in Canada. It permits dues check-off, but it also holds that a worker does not have to affiliate with the union at his or her workplace. I guess it's slightly superficial if you're still paying into the activities of the union, but the person would still have the "right to work" if the union decided its workers were going to strike. How else do you balance freedom of association with the reality that unions benefit all workers at a workplace?

A society without Unions would be in worse shape as would a society that openly attacks and prohibits unions (late 1800's and early 1900's). As having worked minimum wage earlier in my life I understand that problems of a lack of benefits and low wages. I in no way am opposed to Unions, its the principle of forced membership. Unions have a historic place in Atlasia, and will likely have a future in this nation, but I do indeed know several people who oppose being forced into the Unions. The Rand Formula is something I'll be looking into, as it sounds quite reasonable to me.

Can you fill me on the Rand Formula when you get more details?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I should say, I don't expect people who usually support Right to Work to like the Rand Formula. It's just one of those things that kind of works for me. But I'm less right-wing on this issue than others. Not all of you should rally around the Rand Formula without reading about it first... It could end up being a little shallow. Only because, straight up, I don't think it's the most JCLish thing in the world.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm not rallying around the Rand Formula Hagrid. I'm just interested in comparing the two.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Endorsed.

[Spamage]

Spamage Presidential Platform Part 1
Game Reform

     Yet again it appear Game Reform will be the primary topic of this election. Atlasia throughout the last few months has seen a stagnation in activity and a decline in overall interest in the game. While some would prescribe this to a summer lull, I think differently. The system we currently use in Atlasia works, but only does part of the job. By reforming the system, such as the creation of 4 regions instead of 5, we can ensure that Atlasia stays viable and citizens everywhere gain confidence in their government.

    I believe that a 4 regions system would better suit the needs of the citizens of Atlasia. I also believe that regional governments are a part of Atlasia that needs to be preserved, not replaced with a bicameral legislature in the Federal Government. While in the past I viewed this as unnecessary Federal intervention into the day to day workings of the lower government in Atlasia I now see differently. Sure, there are times when 3 or 4 regions are 100% active, but when have all 5 been active at the same time? I don't support full abolition however. Throughout the history of Atlasia there has been times where politics and government in the regional governments were much more active than those in the national government. While the Senate does well now, that always hasn't been the case whereas there has always been at least 2 or more regional governments active. By creating a 4 region Atlasia we achieve a balance between complete Federalism as well as complete regionalism.

    Unlike other Presidents in the past, I will actually call for another Constitutional Convention. Often times we've seen Presidents unwilling to act in order to replace our heavily amended national constitution with a new one, but I believe it is dire for the game's continued growth. By creating another Constitution we not only will have the ability to implement new ideas such as a 4 region government, but we also can remove those which we, as a whole, deem unnecessary.

    I realize not everyone is excited or even willing to enact reforms to the game, and I'll take their opinions into account, as well as the opinions of Atlasians as a whole. Progress just for the sake of Progress must be avoided. Instead we should focus on Progress for Atlasia's sake.  If something is working perfectly well I see no reason to either remove or destroy it. If something is inactive or time wasting I believe it should be either streamlined or taken out of the game.

    This is only the beginning of a platform which I hope to periodically release between now and the Presidential Election in October. Alongside this expect to see speeches, legislation ideas, as well as followups and answers to your questions. Game Reform is a big topic and this only scratches the surface of ideas that we can enact to better our future as a whole.

[Napoleon]

I am happy to see you embrace the idea of a constitutional convention. While my campaign is a long shot, I was hoping to bring attention to something I feel is of critical interest. I would like to crush you and destroy you but I have nothing bad to say about you my friend so best of luck.

[GAworth]

Sorry Spamage for advocating this on your election thread, but TNF if you so against Spamage then run for President against him. You can make  your case there instead of snipping from the sidelines. That is unless you are afraid you would loose?
Look I am backing no one so far in the President's race, I feel a healthy debate is always needed and honestly I feel that Spamage v. TNF v. someone else (TBD) would be great.
So TNF, if you think Spamage has not a great job then run against him. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Flake]

Sorry Spamage for advocating this on your election thread, but TNF if you so against Spamage then run for President against him. You can make  your case there instead of snipping from the sidelines. That is unless you are afraid you would loose?
Look I am backing no one so far in the President's race, I feel a healthy debate is always needed and honestly I feel that Spamage v. TNF v. someone else (TBD) would be great.
So TNF, if you think Spamage has not a great job then run against him. Put your money where your mouth is.

[PJ]

What is your position on starting from scratch with our laws?

[Spamage]

 I would like to apologize for my temporary disappearance over the last few days. My mother has been having some health issues lately which diverted my attention from the game. I'm back now however, and will be releasing the second plank of my platform hopefully this evening focusing on a second part of game reform including the reset to our laws and other proposals on the table.

[Spamage]

Big announcement coming.

[sentinel]

[Spamage]

    Hello my fellow Atlasians,

             As we near the coming election we continue to see stagnation with activity, unemployment higher than it once was, and political discourse much more sour than usual. We must move beyond all these things and with there in mind I have chosen a Vice Presidential nominee.

             This person is not only devoted to Atlasia and filled with bold new ideas which will bring our country future success, but has also been extremely helpful during my time here. Not only has he already made a big splash in the game, but he is also able to make many more. Ladies and Gentlemen I would like to officially announce that my Vice Presidential candidate will be LumineVonReuental. Lumine is devoted to Atlasia and will make a terrific Vice President following the upcoming election. Not only does he know that there are times in which one must compromise, he also understands that there are some when standing your own ground is also necessary. Together we intend to fix Atlasia from it's current state of increased unemployment with a slight bump to our nation's minimum wage to give those on the bottom a fighting chance in an increasingly expensive world.

             For too long have people settled for the usual ideas in Nyman, its time for a change. Together myself and Lumine will bring that change by sweeping in a breath of fresh air to stagnant positions where the same type of person has ran the country for years. Join us and we can do this because, together we'll win.

[Maxwell]

I can't vote against LumineVonReuental. Endorsed.

[tmthforu94]

Great choice!