SPC for Senate: Part X

[Associate Justice PiT]

Endorsed

[Associate Justice PiT]

If I can vote for you, I will.

Thank you, and while I hope otherwise, I think you have to have registered 10 days before the election to vote. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, as I hope I am.

     It was changed to seven days before by an amendment during the Moderate administration, as I recall.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If I can vote for you, I will.

Thank you, and while I hope otherwise, I think you have to have registered 10 days before the election to vote. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, as I hope I am.

     It was changed to seven days before by an amendment during the Moderate administration, as I recall.

You are welcome

     You were the one who introduced it weren't you? I forgot.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     

[Associate Justice PiT]

     

Rest assured, I will be recruiting many Atlas libertarians to Atlasia between now and December.

     Yep. Actually, I was also sad because we kind of caused Bacon King to lose.

     Anyway, I can help you with the task of getting more folks around here.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     

Rest assured, I will be recruiting many Atlas libertarians to Atlasia between now and December.

     Yep. Actually, I was also sad because we kind of caused Bacon King to lose.

     Anyway, I can help you with the task of getting more folks around here.

I wouldn't worry about it. If BaconKing wants it, he could probably win the seat back in a month. Plus, I did get more votes that BaconKing, so it could be said that BaconKing's supporters caused me to lose.

     Indeed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The thing about IRV is that there isn't a spoiler effect. Bacon King's supporters overwhelmingly preferred Lief, and so Lief got elected.

     You have a point, though as I said, IRV overwhelmingly favors centrists if they can survive the first round. BK undeniably has the deepest base of support, & would have won easily if either SPC or Lief didn't run.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The thing about IRV is that there isn't a spoiler effect. Bacon King's supporters overwhelmingly preferred Lief, and so Lief got elected.

     You have a point, though as I said, IRV overwhelmingly favors centrists if they can survive the first round. BK undeniably has the deepest base of support, & would have won easily if either SPC or Lief didn't run.

But IRV makes it much harder for centrists to come first or second. Which is the catch. We might be seeing it here.

     Yep. People are left afraid to vote for candidates who won't win because they can still vote for the centrist afterwards. It's that kind of thing that led to a second turn between Chirac & Le Pen in 2002.

The thing about IRV is that there isn't a spoiler effect. Bacon King's supporters overwhelmingly preferred Lief, and so Lief got elected.

     You have a point, though as I said, IRV overwhelmingly favors centrists if they can survive the first round. BK undeniably has the deepest base of support, & would have won easily if either SPC or Lief didn't run.

Keep in mind I still have a trick up my sleeve that could give Bacon the election.

     Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's that kind of thing that led to a second turn between Chirac & Le Pen in 2002.

Actually, no. That was caused by the massive fragmentation of the left-wing vote... and wouldn't have been a problem under IRV anyway.

     Still, if France didn't have the second turn, Le Pen wouldn't have done as well & Jospin would have placed second. It wasn't the principle reason, though I would be surprised if it weren't a contributing factor.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am glad to hear it. This election will undoubtedly have fewer spoiled ballots than the last one (unless somebody else feels like spoiling their's).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Constitution Convention

As a candidate for Senate, you may be wondering where I stand on the issue of a Constitutional Convention. I would like to say that I am supportive of a Constitutional Convention. I believe that the Constitution needs to be changed to allocate more powers with the regional governments and less powers with the federal government. Thank you.

Er... the regional governments are already incredibly powerful. Have you read the constitution? They're arguably more powerful than American states.

     Maybe that's not enough power for us.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nice. Time to shake the boat a little.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Found this from Meeker:

Troll Banishment Act

With the unanimous agreement of the Atlasian Senate and the President, an Atlasian considered a "troll" may be banished from Atlasia. They are not allowed to vote or participate in Atlasia in any way, shape or form.

I wonder if there's any way we could speed this up too

I doubt it.

PPT's discretion.

     But naturally. You never see it used though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm glad to see some anti-troll legislation.

     Me too. Next time I would like to see anti-troll legislation that is less than completely useless.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     That sounds like a good thing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

     Basically where exactly in the Constitution it says that the Senate has the power to do what the bill entails.

[Associate Justice PiT]

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

     It is difficult to explain such a thing to one who explicitly rejects the value of freedom.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

     It is difficult to explain such a thing to one who explicitly rejects the value of freedom.

And evidently difficult to understand for someone who places idealistic values of "freedom" above what is an empirical success and observably better for all of society's health.

     Then perhaps we should agree to disagree.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     When one believes that an ideal is sufficiently attractive to trump the alternatives, issues can arise. If fascist policies were empirically shown to be the most successful at achieving the goals that you consider important, I highly doubt you would run out & become a fascist.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vote SPC: He supports the right of smokers to give children respiratory problems.

     Every good thing can be spun to look bad. Case in point: the quoted post.

Please explain how overturning a smoking ban is a good thing. Not in terms of libertarian buzzwords (I know about personal and business freedom, blah blah), explain how it's better for society for second hand smoke to be everywhere.

You know, there actually is a libertarian argument to make for a public smoking ban. Second hand smoke harms the health of others, thus it harms their right to life, which justifies government intervention.

     Which assumes the existence of a right to life that is more than a simple corollary of the non-aggression axiom or alternatively assumes that smoking constitutes an act of aggression against those who breathe the smoke in.