Post Dissolution Elections: June 2012

[Talleyrand]

2nd part of the series.

2 days.

[Cassius]

Long before my time, but I imagine that I would have voted for Clarence. Anyhow, what happened to Napoleon?

[Maxwell]

Oak/Cinci

[sentinel]

Oak/Cinci

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Clarence/Yelnoc

This was my first presidential election. It's thanks to Clarence that I'm even here in the first place. Hard to believe it was over two years ago... what a waste.

[SWE]

Oak/Cinci

[DemPGH]

Anyhow, what happened to Napoleon?

Activity over time tends to drain you out, I think, especially when you've been a two-term President, senator, etc., if that's what you mean. As with a lot of things, the highs aren't as high and the lows are lower (running a Pres. campaign is hellish). I've always had great communication with him, but his recent departure kind of left me wondering.

Anyhow, Nappy and Kalwejt would have most represented my views, and I would have voted for that ticket first. February 2013 (Marokai) was my first election, and I think I joined around the time that Nappy resigned.

[TNF]

Tweed

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think I voted for Clarence.  Maybe Oakvale?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Clarence/Yelnoc

This was my first presidential election. It's thanks to Clarence that I'm even here in the first place. Hard to believe it was over two years ago... what a waste.

I would gladly give anything to go back to June 2012. Though January 2012 would be somewhat better, I would gladly take June if possible.

[Oakvale]

I'm sorry for this but, seven people...

>2014
>voting for Napoleon

[Cincinnatus]

Man. I really get around don't I. I should probably try and be the top at some point.

[Goldwater]

[1] Clarence
[2] Oakvale

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Long before my time, but I imagine that I would have voted for Clarence. Anyhow, what happened to Napoleon?

There are two reasons why we had what was effectively a two-party system for over a year following Napoleon's presidency. The first is that Griffin is the game's most effective political organizer since bgwah's heyday as JCP Chair. The second is that Napoleon's toxic personality burnt a hole straight through the center-left. While Napoleon was extremely skilled at whipping votes, he was so incapable of dealing with his more active allies that he alienated them one by one - Cincinnatus, Oakvale, myself, Scott, etc.

Many people argue that the game inevitably gravitates toward two dominant parties, one representing the left and the other the right. I disagree - and I think we've been drifting away from two-party dominance for months - but even for those who subscribe to this view, Labor's ascension and the collapse of the Liberals requires an explanation.

Of course Napoleon's presidency was an entertaining (albeit frustrating) time for those of us in the Senate, and working with the anti-administration coalition during the winter of 2012-2013 might be the most fun I've had in Atlasia.

It was actually fantastic.

[Talleyrand]

Voting is closed on this poll.

It appears that Oakvale/Cincinnatus would have tied Clarence/Yelnoc in the first round, and likely won  in the final round, judging from the preference allocation in the original election.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The era when The Party reigned was some of the most fun I have had here too, especially the February 2013 elections.

May The People continue their reign now and forevermore.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was my first election, and even then, I remember it being awful and boring. I voted for Napoleon at the time (Napoleon the campaigner was formidably effective), but probably would have voted for Tweed had I known more.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Long before my time, but I imagine that I would have voted for Clarence. Anyhow, what happened to Napoleon?

There are two reasons why we had what was effectively a two-party system for over a year following Napoleon's presidency. The first is that Griffin is the game's most effective political organizer since bgwah's heyday as JCP Chair. The second is that Napoleon's toxic personality burnt a hole straight through the center-left. While Napoleon was extremely skilled at whipping votes, he was so incapable of dealing with his more active allies that he alienated them one by one - Cincinnatus, Oakvale, myself, Scott, etc.

Many people argue that the game inevitably gravitates toward two dominant parties, one representing the left and the other the right. I disagree - and I think we've been drifting away from two-party dominance for months - but even for those who subscribe to this view, Labor's ascension and the collapse of the Liberals requires an explanation.

Of course Napoleon's presidency was an entertaining (albeit frustrating) time for those of us in the Senate, and working with the anti-administration coalition during the winter of 2012-2013 might be the most fun I've had in Atlasia.

It was actually fantastic.

In so many different ways too.