Talk Elections

I hereby declare our convention open!

I would like to amend our bylaws.

1. For those running for President, the Party shall permit only one member to stand as the Party's candidate.
2. Party members wishing to run for President shall first submit themselves to a party primary.
3. The primary should be held no later than a month before a presidential election.
4. The candidate should be chosen by preferential vote.
5. Any party member running for president or vice president on any ticket besides that of the party shall forfeit their membership in the Whig Party.

Would the person that wins the Whig primary be allowed to choose a running mate from a different party?

I too would like to echo Goldwater's question.

I've intended no prohibition thereof.

Hmm. I support the proposed amendment to the bylaws in that case.

Very good! I'd like to prevent the division and destructive electoral fusion/diffusion that characterized the RPP's later years.

What do you mean? The RPP was pretty monolithic.

If a Whig can bring a runningmate from another party then why would one that runs as a runningmate with say a MCPR or the Imperial Bloc be removed as a Whig?

Because that's unlikely to happen.

Not as unlikely as you think.

I agree with JCL... That shouldn't be in our bylaws.

I agree... I also believe we ought to have new language for filling vacancies...the no confidence vote on Vice Chairman Vacancy seems a bit cuckoo!

I agree with what has been said. I'm fine with the first four sections of Simfan's amendment but not with the fift section. Also, we should fix the vice chairman vacancy problem.

What is the point of primaries then? There must be an enforcing quality. I'm open to removing the vice-presidential clause but there should be "sore loser" restrictions of some sort.

Aren't we the party that sort of promotes "personal responsibility" (at least on economic issues)? ;) I think we can trust that the loser of a potential primary would be loyal enough to lend his support to the winner and not become his rival as a "sore loser".

There is no real enforcement mechanism anyway unless you seal off the general election from those who loose the primary and such wouldn't be possible in a system where parties constantly come and go.

I also take exception to the anti-RPP revisionism in this thread. :P

All right, I strike it off.

Yankee! I have always been pro-RPP! Mind you, I opposed dissolution!

Funny, don't recall specifying which one I was referring too. Maybe I was referring to both of them. >:D

Bump! I'm checking in haha

If Simfan hasn't headed off to Ethiopia yet and still has internet access, I think this may be the time to hold a vote on the amendments to the bylaws our dear leader has put forward.

To get the voting rolling, I approve the by-law amendment.

Aye.

I'd like to add one more plank...

In the event of a vacancy in the office of Vice Chairman, the Chairman shall begin an election to fill the post within three days

There we go. :P

Aye. Unless someone else has something to add?

I vote AYE

I vote aye.

Aye.

Aye

AYe

Aye

Aye.

Aye

AYE, if I'm allowed to vote.

Nay

Aye

This has been voted on for a good 48 hours, shall we consider it passed?

I say we shall. Any further resolutions?

I motion that we remove this from the Party Platform:


It just seems rather, how do I put it... 'wishy-washy'. We already have the multilateral, anti-military conflict and diplomacy clauses on the platform; all of which as an EVUL neocon, I find very 'bleurgh'. Nevertheless, I'm quite sure every Atlasian is 'aware' of their nations foremost role in the world and is therefore naturally 'mindful' of its power.

I'm neutral on Supersonic's suggestion.

Either way, he opens up an interesting door... I wouldn't mind having a bit of a discussion on our military-related positions. As it stands, the other parties seem woefully prepared to lead our country to defeat if Atlasia was ever threatened or attacked.

So I'm thinking, how do we reconcile what Hagrid has just with our own significant noninterventist view. It seems like proper defense has always taking a back seat to the combined left's desire for massive domestic programs and I believe that has been to our ill.

That is funny. I suppose our desire for massive domestic social programs allowed for the expansion of private health care, tax cuts and a balanced budget (actually a surplus)? I advise you find more effective talking points if you want to be a superpartisan.

I am opposed to any form of isolationism and therefore the removal of that part of the platform. Any form of isolationist thinking in the 21st century is incomprehensible and a symptom of a total lack of understanding of geopolitics, diplomacy, or economics. Atlasia may stand first amongst the community of nations, but it cannot stand alone.

I declare that the Whig Party primary shall be held on 9 September, 2012.

I believe that is taking things too far.... I have faith that even those furthest left would support a military response if we are directly threatend and certainly if we are attacked. However- I agree fully that their policies make the world more dangerous for our nation and would be open to new language in our platform which distinguishes our foreign policy views from theirs

Appreciate the comment, JCL. I guess what I'm wondering is, what constitutes a non-interventionalist view, and do a significant number of us actually have one? In an ideal world of Whig majorities, would we go into Iran to pre-empt a nuclear attack?

Also, to clarence: I sure wish I could be as optimistic as you. :P
For example, conscription would be one of the most unfortunate things in the world, bar the total defeat of Atlasia. Unfortunately, I just don't have faith in 4/5ths or even 2/3rds of the senate to vote for it if we came down to a situation where the survival of our nation would depend on it. That's why I couldn't support the recent amendment.

Am I just more of a "Bush**te" than the rest of the party? I will stand with the Whigs regardless, but I'm curious to see what page we're all on.

No, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

As far as I'm aware by looking at Whig members, the party is split right down the middle on foreign policy. You got the non-interventionist libertarian types, the paleoconservatives and the neo-cons. Hence the 'moderate-hero' esque foreign policy aspects of the Whig platform as a bridge to all sides.

Due to TJ's announcement that he would not seek re-election we should try to find a second candidate for an at-large seat as soon as possible.

Hmmmm....

My thoughts exactly. :P

My thoughts as well!

In my opinion you should not be the Whig Party candidate. I don't say this because I don't want you to be Senator but because you have done a lot for the Mideast Assembly this session and it would be bad to lose you!

Well someone's got to run.

I agree and I'll only run if I absolutely need to. We should run a strong candidate, someone like Cathcon or Simfan.

I would support Romney/Ryan 2012 or Cathcon.  I don't know much about Simfan but would get more information if he were the candidate.

Is the Whig Party planning to endorse any non-Whig candidates for the At-Large Senate election?

I don't really know what we're gonna do, since both our chairman and vice-chairman are currently unavailable.

Do we know when Simfan and clarence are planning to return?

Simfan will return on the 23rd, but I don't know when Clarance will return.

I've taken it upon myself to write up an endorsement ballot.

Non-Whig Endorsement Ballot. 48 Hours. Aye, Nay or Abstain

Franzl (Liberal)

NVTownsend (Liberal)

BaconKing (Liberal)

Seatown (Labor)
 
Snowstalker (Labor)

Marokai Blue (Labor)
 
Xahar ("Национа́льное движе́ние «Алия́ Муста́фина")

Hashemite ("Национа́льное движе́ние «Алия́ Муста́фина")

AndrewTX (Independent)

SJoyceFla (Imperial Bloc)
 

Franzl - Abstain
NVTownsend  - Aye
BaconKing- Abstain
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Nay
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Abstain
AndrewTX - Aye
SJoyceFla - Aye

Franzl - Nay
NVTownsend  - Aye
BaconKing- Nay
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Abstain
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Nay
AndrewTX - Abstain
SJoyceFla - Nay

Edit: SjoyceFla from Aye to Nay due to foreign policy clashes.

Snowstalker from Nay to Abstain.

Franzl - Abstain
NVTownsend  - Aye
BaconKing- Abstain
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Nay
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Nay
AndrewTX - Aye
SJoyceFla - Aye

Franzl - Nay
NVTownsend  - Nay
BaconKing- Nay
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Nay
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Nay
AndrewTX - Nay
SJoyceFla - Aye

Franzl - Nay
NVTownsend  - Aye
BaconKing- Nay
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Nay
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Nay
AndrewTX - Nay
SJoyceFla - Aye

Franzl - aye
NVTownsend - nay
BaconKing - nay
Seatown - nay
Snowstalker - aye
MarokaiBlue - nay
Xahar - nay
Hashemite - nay
AndrewTX- aye
SJoyceFla - nay

Franzl - Abstain
NVTownsend  - Aye
BaconKing- Abstain
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Nay
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Nay
AndrewTX - Aye
SJoyceFla - Aye

I'm afraid it's not so easy. If I'm not mistaken our bylaws don't include a clause which makes it possible for a chairman to resign for a while and return to the same position. You resigned as chairman because of your holiday, I took over because I was vice chairman at that time, then I resigned as well and we elected Simfan. Thus, I think if you want to become chairman again you will have to run for this position at the next convention.

I reccommend a bit of an uneasy alliance for this election. The liberals have swamped the race with centrist and socially liberal candidates; you hate Napoleon's army, and we've been marginalized by them. Therefore, I ask that both our parties avoid preferencing Liberal candidates at all.

It can't possibly be that saying f*** you to the voters was the bad idea? No of course not, its my fault.

As for our candidates, NVTownsend is very moderate and BK and Franzl both voted for Clarence over me. It's pretty clear that I don't lead some sort of army. Take your campaign's desperation elsewhere.

"Army" of course means voting bloc; you'll surely agree with Bacon on far more than you'll agree with seatown or me.

And the Whigs will agree with Bacon, Franzl, and Townsend on far more than they would agree with you or Seatown.

We're not a threat to them; there are rather few swing voters between Labor and Whig. The strategy is obvious; we both benefit by chipping at the juggernaut. Given your teaming up with a right-wing troll to dance on oakvale's grave and accuse him of bullying people off the forum, you don't seem to be above the same tactics, Mr. President. But let's respect the Whig party and end this.

The Labor Party is waking up, that's good to see! As I already stated in earlier discussions on this topic, the Labor Party is not going to survive in the long run if your main purpose appears to be to help the Liberal Party without getting anything in return. You need to emphasize your own identity and seek to distance yourselves from the Liberals.

As for the content of your plan I can't promise anything, nor can I speak on behalf of the entire Whig Party. I will actually preference one Liberal candidate who I think will make a fine Senator but I will also preference a Labor candidate. At any rate, I much prefer candidates who are outspoken about their views to moderate heroes who are afraid to say anything controversial and encourage the members of the Whig Party to value true conviction more than fake moderate heroism.

Wow. So it seems our endorsement voting was just completely taken over with this tripe.

It would seem so, but I do appreciate Snowstalker's sentiment. If the polls are any indication, we're looking at an extremely Liberal senate. The only two candidates I'm most invested in supporting are myself and clarence. So if we do make a trade-off for top five preferences with some other party, it could be to the Whig Party's benefit... (as much as I hate to say it).

I'll have to give it some thought. I'm very torn. I just want what's best for our party and the country.

With regards to the issue raised by Snowstalker...

I believe in voting for candidates by his or her merit, not by his or her party. Snowstalker, you will definitely be on my preference list because I believe you merit election to Senate- but I will not place some one such as Seatown who has been very hostile and unparliamentary in the Senate over some one such as Franzl or Bacon King- who would be pleasures to serve with- due to partisan dealmaking. I understand your concerns about the Labor Party's identity and echo ZuWo's comments in that regard, and I believe the Lbor Party has shining members such as you and Redalgo. However, I do not believe an official deal along these lines is the way to go for this election with this slate of candidates....

I understand the concerns of the Whig leaders and will be happy to cooperate in the future.

What are our party's thoughts about a non-binding election pact with the Labor group? I, personally, think we should give, say, our 3rd of 4th preferences to a Labor candidate if they agree to do the same.

I say this as polls seem to show the Liberals winning a God-awful lot of At-Large seats.

Well, I've already decide on my top 5 & no Labor Party members are in there, although I would be open to giving Snowstalker 6th preference.

Hey, I'm planning on preferencing Clarence and probably Hagrid, and I'm a whole lot closer to the Whigs than Labor is...

I was just putting the idea out there, especially since Snowstalker already came to us the other day suggesting some form of pact/deal.

So, I've thought about it, and my very candid thoughts are this: clarence will have enough support from Liberal and Whig voters to be elected without this pact. If we do enter into this pact, any Labour members who follow through (and that's assuming some will) will probably be more inclined to support clarence, who will likely win without the pact. Only problem is, the pact could actually upset the Liberals enough for them to direct support away clarence. We don't want that.

So is the trade-off worth it, considering we are probably ideologically closer to folks like Townsend? I'm beginning to think it might not be.

The polls show Liberal candidates running well among top five preferences. This is, quite clearly, a meaningless statistic. Most voters' third and fourth preferences won't even make much a difference. It's also not very difficult to see why this is the case. The Liberal slate has a reputation for being serious and reasonable people, and ideologically we fit between the other two large parties, the Labor Party and the Whig Party. It is therefore safe to assume that the polls you are looking at do not necessarily reflect what the actual election results will be.

Is the non-whig endorsement voting closed? Its been 48 hours

Yes it has. Out of eight voters, it seems the Party has endorsed:

NVTownsend.
SJoyceFla.
AndrewTX.

Correct me if I'm wrong of course, I'm awfully tired. :P

FTR:

Non-Whig Endorsement Ballot. 48 Hours. Aye, Nay or Abstain

Franzl AYE

NVTownsend AYE

BaconKing AYE

Seatown NAY
 
Snowstalker AYE

Marokai Blue ABSTAIN
 
Xahar ABSTAIN

Hashemite AYE

AndrewTX AYE

SJoyceFla AYE

Ah, well, thats good then. ;)

We could approach the Liberals about endorsing Clarence as their own candidate, if that's what you're suggesting, but realize that the final decision is up to them.

Our party should lay out some policy red-lines.

I believe it should be Whig Party policy to oppose the so called "Equal Rights Amendment" going through the Senate right now. I, for one, would also like to commend Senators Clarence and TJ for doing a bang up (aka good) job in the Senate fighting this 'politically correct' nonsense.

Agreed.

I wholeheartedly agree. The "Equal Rights Amendment" is completely unnecessary as it merely tries to tackle problems that don't even exist and opens the possibility to many legal uncertainties as has been pointed out by our Senators TJ and Clarence. We should not water down our constitution by adopting meaningless clauses since this only devalues our constitution.

Additionally, we should consider adding a plank to our platform which says that we are supportive of regional rights and as much independence of the regions from the federal government as possible.

How far does "as much as possible" go? Surely you're not thinking of making the regions completely independent?

No, that's not my intention. What I mean is that no new laws should be passed and no actions taken by the federal government that restrict our regions in any way. Rather, we should seek to find new ways to grant the regions more rights - but still within the federal state of Atlasia.

I agree. I plan to work on this issue as much as I can if I'm elected to the senate.

As shall I. Good to see the Whigs wholeheartedly endorsing our regions.

I ask the whigs to vote give labor candidates preference over liberals.

ZuWo, Pingvin, Jbrase, PiT, and I worked this arraignment out.

I disapprove. Firstly, despite stating that the two parties are 'legal separate apparatus' etc, allowing Imperial Bloc members to stand for internal Whig Party offices just seems rather off. This effectively gives the Bloc a huge say, if they win a Whig Party position, in influencing nationwide policy, not just southern issues.

Secondly, given that the Imperial Bloc is a regionalist group, I'm sceptical of how many Bloc members there are outside of the south that would be of use to Whig candidates in other regions. On the flip side, our party would in effect, be abandoning a whole region, in which we have made great inroads. The ol' Griffgraph released the other day showed the south trending Whig hard, and to pack up shop and leave now seems ridiculous. Not to mention, if the Whig Party abandons the south, the region, in effect, becomes a one party state.

Also, and this is a more general statement. While 'endorsements' are all well and good, in reality, they do little and people vote for whomever they want and, lets face it, they don't really care what the Party says. Therefore while the intent may be noble, the practical result may not be as intended.

I may be convinced otherwise, but that's just my tuppence for the time being.

Edit: I wrote this when I was quite tired, so bear with.

I have remained friendly with the Imperial Bloc throughout my time in the region. I believe in fighting for regional rights, and I believe that the South comprises a distinct cultural society within a unified Atlasia. If I was not a Whig, I would join the Imperial Bloc. That being said, I am a Whig, I enjoy being a Whig, and I will not willingly forfeit my membership.

So with that in mind, I cannot be supportive of this language. If it comes up for a vote, I will not support it. If it wins, you will have to expel me from the party. If I am expelled from the party, I will reluctantly move to another region and re-apply for membership.

Our two parties are very cooperative already when it comes to federal elections, and I believe we lose more than we gain by making this deal.

I know we've worked very closely over the course of this election, ZuWo, but I just can't support what you propose. I have the utmost respect for the Imperial Bloc–but I will not allow myself to be compelled to join a party.

I understand all these concerns that you, Supersonic and Hagrid, have raised. There are things we must discuss and we obviously won't enter such a union without holding a vote after an extensive debate, and nobody will be forced to enter a new political group if they don't want to.

Firstly, let's put this idea in a broader context. In fact, this union proposal is based on the CDU/CSU model in Germany. I guess most of you are at least superficially familiar with this concept: The CSU is only politically active in Bavaria, the CDU is the party of the rest of Germany and does not exist in Bavaria. Both groups - the CDU and the CSU - have separate identies but because of their political similarities they make up a political union. For example, the current German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is a member of the CDU, but the previous candidate for Chancellor, former Bavarian Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber, ran on a common CDU/CSU ticket in 2002. In fact, it has been a tradition in Germany that if in an election year the CDU/CSU candidate for Chancellor is a CDU member, the next candidate will be a CSU member.

Now the proposed Whig/IB union is very similar: The Whig Party and the Imperial Bloc shall enter a union and, despite retaining their separate identities and names, are essentially one political group. Thus, I don't think the Whig Party would lose anyone if all Whig members in the South joined the IB because, according to this proposal, the Whig Party and the IB are one. Likewise, those members of the IB outside of the South (I think there's at least one if not two) would not really leave the IB because we will be one and the same political group.

Let's face it: The Whig Party and the IB have cooperated a lot in recent elections. Candidates of the Whig Party have no shot at winning an election without IB support and vice versa. We in the Whig Party owe the IB a lot; our Senators TJ and Clarence (and - hopefully - our future Senator Hagrid) have been successful in part thanks to our friends in the IB. Our last two presidential tickets consisted of a Whig and an IB member; I had the honor to run on a ticket with Jbrase in February and Clarence ran with Yelnoc in June. What this proposal wants to achieve is nothing more than a logical extension of the current political reality in Atlasia. We can and certainly should debate the language of this union proposal, but I stand behind the main concept of this idea. While the IB is less homogeneous than the Whig Party - we are a center-right party whereas the IB is a bit of a mixed bag - we have one important principle in common: The protection of regional rights and our belief in an economic system which values personal responsibility. This is our common base, and this is why such a union makes sense.

Just to address this right now (I had a big thing too, but ZuWo said it much better than what I had :P), that's a provision I added in there when I remembered that Clarence had a leadership role in the Whig Party and wouldn't likely want to give that up (although the Bloc has a vacant Vice-Chairmanship :)); if y'all want to toss it, it's pretty fine.

ZuWo said all the things I wanted to say.
Plus Whig-IB united party will be largest in Atlasia.

I always support cooperation with the Bloc...I want to point out that I am a Whig, not Imperial Bloc- so I don't understand the "Clarence Clause" ;-)

Southern Whigs would join the Bloc, non-Southern IBers would join the Whigs (like how the CDU doesn't run against CSU candidates and vice-versa).

I sent my concerns via pm to SJoyceFla before reading the thread, and now I wish to God I'd copied them to somewhere else first. :P

Maybe he wouldn't mind quoting the pm here? I'm on my phone, so the "typing" is a bit difficult.

A question though: Why couldn't we maintain such a formalized alliance without requiring folks to switch parties?  Any non-IB candidate running in the South would just have to accept that they'd be preferenced second to their friends in the Bloc by Bloc members... which, if I may say, is something we've been living with fine for quite sometime.

I know it's stubborn, but if I become HagridOfTheDeep (IB-SC), I have left the Whigs. SJoyce, you know I love the IB... But I joined the Whigs because that's where I felt I belonged, and I don't want that to change. And other than the membership swaps, I don't really see what this proposition would actually do. TJ and clarence didn't always vote the same, so obviously caucusing together wouldn't really matter; and endorsements don't really matter much either, because people will support who they're going to support. Mechaman didn't vote for any Whig whatsoever!

So to me, this proposition basically reaffirms the status quo with the exception of forcing me to join another party.

For the record, it was nothing personal.  I just had to preference the two joke candidates and SJoyce (since I'm a party hack who takes his marching orders explicitly from the Kremlin, err I mean the Imperial House).  By the time I got to my fifth preference any vote I gave any of you guys would've been non-existent (hell, do they even count votes past fifth preference?).
That, and admittedly there were a lot of kickass candidates to support.  Something that, sadly, would've affected my voting choices :(.

With that said, I do agree with Hagrid's conclusions (though I am not a Whig, and probably won't ever consider myself one.  Sorry guys :().  If there is an election that all of us feel is important enough to rally behind a common ticket, we will do so.  It shouldn't be something enforced by party structure.  That is the beauty of Atlasia that we don't see in American politics: parties working together to achieve a common goal.

I voted for the Clarence/Yelnoc ticket last presidential election.  I voted for ZuWo/Jbrase.  Those were worthy tickets and I would probably hesitate to support another Whig Presidential candidate, but (like last time) if the candidate gives sufficient reason to support them I will!  As I would expect a lot of other IB members to do.

You fine principled folks shouldn't have to change for anyone :)

Actually Mecha you're 5th preference is currently the one that ends up counting actually :P

;)

In all honesty though, I don't care too much that you didn't support us... that's for you to decide (and after the June IDS campaign, I don't blame you :P). My point, though, is that an alliance like this would look fine and dandy on paper, but I don't think it would achieve anything different than what the current reality already is.

Ehh right.  Well, I kind of felt the need to troll Atlasia, thus my vote for seatown.  I used very similar logic a few months ago when I gave Wormyguy first preference.

Again, no hurt personal feelings.  Well, except for the lack of generous bribes ;D.

I completely agree.

:(

I've already envisioned Emperor PiT as our Atlasian Edmund Stoiber and had a few ideas of who could be our equivalent to Angela Merkel.

Another note: The IDS has in-region registration as well (we've got an Imperial Census bureau), so if the Southern Whigs join the IB they can still be a part of the Imperial Whig Party.

Politicus?

Guys, are we going back to a two-party system?

Yes, Speaker Alfred F. Jones (Lab/Lib-NY), we are.

If the preliminary Senate results are certified we can say that this election has been a huge success for the Whig Party. Not only did we manage to retain our two at-large seats, which was quite a challenge due to the large number of good candidates and the high turnout, but we also have a new Whig Governor, spamage, who I think is someone who can help turn around the Pacific with his enthusiasm and willingness to do his gubernatorial duties.

This was overall a fun election and a sign that Atlasia is not quite dead yet. ;)

Edit: The Whig Party is now tied with the Imperial Bloc for largest IDS Party. -claps-

HUZZAH!!!!
*silently brings crate full with Smirnoff bottles to convention*

HUZZAH!!!  
(Cracks open a champagne bottle and a bottle of ginger ale for self)

Boy, it sure would be nice if you could get Vernor's in bottles like this! :

(Shakes a bottle of Vernor's and, while turning away, opens it, blowing off the cap.)

I propose a toast to our party's new at-large Senators, Clarence and Hagrid, and to our new Pacific Governor, Spamage.
(Lifts glass to toast)
Cheers!

The Imperial Bloc is the largest IDS party if you discount members of the Whig Party who have been banned. -claps-

Who invited you to the party? ;)

I was here when it started (since page 7) :P

I believe that we should allow IB members to join the party for the purposes of doubling the fun!

Security must be lax. :P

Cheers, everyone! Appreciate the support.

I would like to capitalize on this success of our party and encourage all fellow Whiggers (sorry if that sounds strange) - especially those who are registered voters in the Mideast - to help me in my re-election battle for Governor. Help me to continue my work for the region. We can win this race and with your help we will make sure that we can celebrate another successful election in September!

Thank you. ;)

Maybe I can get to the senate at some point myself.

I'd like to reiterate the importance of backing ZuWo who has selflessly put forward efforts every election to get us all elected... his opponent is a nice fella but even he admits ZuWo has done a fine job, something also shown in his approval ratings. Go, ZuWo!

A special welcome to our latest member, TrueConservative of Virginia. Have fun and feel at home in the Whig Party!

I hope you do. Socially conservative voices are woefully represented in Atlasia.


Welcome TrueConservative. :D

Great to see our membership growing!

It is safe to say that I will probably never win an election ever.

Anyways, what else do I do to get started?

Actually I think with Koenkai and TrueConservative joining we are, by one person, the largest Party in the country! (Going by Homelycookings latest figures)


Hey, welcome to the Whig Party. :D

It seems you're in the Pacific region. Spamage is the Whig Governor-elect of the region and is set on some radical reforms there, so you could drop him a private message. Otherwise, just feel free to join in the banter here.

Welcome to the party! It's the wildest party in all of Atlasia. ;)

Its great to see some new people! Especially one joining the Pacific Region! :)

Ladies and Gentelmen!
I would like to bring three serious questions on vote here:
1) Vote of no confidence in Chairman Simfan (as proposed by Sen. Clarence)
2) Creation of Whig-IB alliance (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156707.msg3399481#msg3399481)
3) Introduction of new plank in our platform:

I will second the motion for a vote of non-confidence in Simfan. He's a great guy, but I think our party is in the midst of a very positive upward turn, and we need an active leadership voice at this time.

(Also, a big welcome to our newest members. :))

I'll support the Vote of No Confidence for what it's worth, in addition to the the inclusion of the 'autonomy' plank.

On the issue of the Whig/IB Union, I think we should defer the voting so we can continue the discussion of the agreement in full and to soothe the concerns of the Whig IDS regional party.

That Simfan missed the last election and has hardly been online in the recent days even after his return from Ethiopia is a bit strange. I hope he's just busy and it's nothing serious.

But indeed, we really need an active leader at this point so I support the motion and also agree with what Supersonic said about the union proposal - we shouldn't hold a vote already.

Guys I'm not sure I like the idea of merging with the IB. It's nothing against the IB; I often do give their candidates high preferences in national elections. But I think both the Whigs and IB have a slightly different appeal. The Whig Party is somewhat ideological and the IB is based on regional interests. These two groups may overlap for the most part, but I think it would cause unnecessary intra-party friction if we merged that can be avoided if we remain separate entities and simply cooperate.

I'm fine with giving people more time to discuss the IB-Whig deal, but I'll be honest: My mind is pretty much made up. I don't think we gain much by making this change.

In my mind, the IB and Whig parties already work very well together as is, I don't think this needs to be in writing. Now, I know the Labor Party has begun a concerted effort to establish themselves in the south, however to counter that, our Party and the Bloc can tactically preference each other. In a region of mainly traditional conservatives and libertarians, this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

For the Vote of No Confidence, the tally is 3-0 FOR. (Hagrid, Supersonic, ZuWo)

The 'Autonomy' Platform Amendment is at 1-0 FOR. (Supersonic)

Thanks, Supersonic but let's make the vote a bit more official...

I will give 24 hours for the vote of no confidence in Chairman Simfan. I do this with regret- he is a good man but he has simply been inactive...

Please vote Aye or Nay on the motion of no confidence in Chairman Simfan

Aye

I like Simfan, but unfortunately he's been very inactive recently.

AYE

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Nay

With a vote of 6-1, the vote of no confidence has passed and Simfan has been removed as Chairman. We hope that he will be able to return to the board and the party very soon...

As I was Vice Chairman and have now assumed the role of Chairman- I will open up a nomination period for the office of Vice Chairman. There will be 24 hours for nominations and then we will proceed to a vote

I nominate myself, if that's possible, for the position of Vice Chairman.

I nominate myself as well just so we can have some competition :P

I support 20RP12's candidacy.

But competition is boooooooooring! :P

I think both of you would do a good job. Supersonic has already proven his leadership abilities during this convention and 20RP12 is a strong asset to the Whig Party with his enthusiasm (IF he actually remains a member of the Whig Party for a couple of weeks or months this time ... :P).

But there will be cookies :D

---

I'll be sticking around this time :P

Good to hear! Now do me a favor and vote for me, please. :P

At any rate, with Clarence we have a competent and universally accepted leader. If he wants to do the job for a longer period of time I support that.

:P

Yeah, I'm all for Clarence leading the party.

Supersonic vs. 20RP12? I can't decide who to vote for. :(

I thank the nominees- Supersonic and 20RP12... I know either will make a fine Vice Chairman. With that, the nomination period is now closed...24 hours for a vote

Vice Chairman
-Supersonic
-20RP12


I abstain as Chairman

[1] Supersonic
[2] 20RP12

[1] 20RP12
[2] Supersonic

[1]Supersonic
[2]20RP12

This vote is still going on...

[1]Supersonic
[2]20RP12

[1] Supersonic
[2] 20RP12

1. 20RP12
2. Supersonic

[1] 20RP12
[2] Supersonic
[3] JCL
[4] Hagridofthedeep

[1] Supersonic
[2] 20RP12

Hello Whigs of Atlasia. Stand by for an address tomorrow.

Voting present. Too ignorant of the personalities to make an informed decision.

1. 20RP12
2. Supersonic

Following conclusion of voting, anyone know of, or desire to create, a list of Whig Party Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen? Not sure if one exists yet, but I think it'd require digging up the old "Communitarian Party of Atlasia" thread at the very least. This is for wiki purposes.

After some research...

Chairman of the Whig Party of Atlasia
1. Pingvin (April 15th, 2012-May 23rd, 2012)
2. ZuWo (May 23rd, 2012-June 26th, 2012)
3. Simfan34 (June 26th, 2012-August 29th, 2012)
4. Clarence (August 29th, 2012-Present)

Vice-Chairman of the Whig Party of Atlasia
1. ZuWo (April 15th, 2012-May 23rd, 2012
2. Simfan34 (June 3rd, 2012-June 26th, 2012)
3. Clarence (July 28th, 2012-August 29th, 2012)

Of note, Pingvin is the only Chairman not to have served as Vice-Chairman. I plan on adding this to the atlas wiki, on our party's page, later today.

Thanks a lot for doing this, Cathcon!

And for the record...

[1]20RP12
[2]SuperSonicVenue

Not out of dis-like for SSV, but 20RP12 has a lot of experience in Atlasia. (plus, this job might force him to quit the Senate race and let someone else change their mind about entering.)

I saw that there already was a leadership page and chose to stick the list in there. Enjoy.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Leadership_of_the_Communitarian_Party

Is the Vice-Chairman vote over now? It has been more than 24 hours.

Click for my convention intro music (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjSpO2B6G4s)

Hello Whigs of Atlasia! I have come to speak to address your fine convention on an important choice you have in front of you. In the coming weeks we will take part in a unique multi-party primary to decide who shall have the honor of continuing on to the general election with the blessing of both our groups.

Before I say anything else I would like to note that I respect tremendously Pingvin, and he has ruled well as IDS Judicial Overlord. He would without doubt energize the far-right of Atlasian politics. I however ask you for your vote in the upcoming primary becuase I feel I can do this job and make this race competitive. I will reach out to the right, the center, the left, commies, anarchists, and everyone in-between. I will do so without betraying my principals that I proudly hold. I will not just talk about "END THE FED!!!11!!", but rather I will discuss the crime that poor people must suffer the price of a devalued currency. I will not just talk about withdrawing every soldier from everywhere all at once, but I will talk about strengthening our defense with a common sense non-aggressive foreign policy that does not keep our forces stretched thin around the world. I will not just call for government to be scaled back, but instead make the case for sensible cuts that everyone can agree with.

I ask you for your support today becuase I feel I can take our case for good Government and build coalitions with it. I have a history of winning support from across the spectrum. Napoleon may be a tough incumbent to beat, but this is not about Napoleon, this is about fighting for what we believe in and doing what we can to improve Atlasia. As such I make this promise: I shall not engage in negative campaigning of any sort. Before we start getting into "tl;dr" territory I shall wrap this up.

Because I believe in positive campaigning I shall not give you any reasons why to reject Pingvin, I will just say this: If you choose me I will give you a positive campaign focused on the issues that matter, and more importantly the solutions. I will run a campaign full of optimism and I will stick to my principals.

Thank you all and Nym bless!
 

Unfortunately ZuWo and Cathcon got here after the voting had expired...I will expand voting time in the future if people feel it is too short

By a vote of 5 to 3, Supersonic is the new Whig Party Vice Chairman- congratulations!

Huzzah!

In honour of 20RP12, I shall listen to Enter Shikari on Spotify for the next half an hour.

Commencing now.

I motion that we commence voting on Pingvin's 'Autonomy' amendment to the party platform.

Congratulations Supersonic. You've been added to the list and you got a little "officeholder" box at the bottom of your Atlas wiki page.

Hahaha best tribute ever :P

Congrats man :D

As per the last vote, this shall be up for 24 hours unless the Chairman deems otherwise.

Anyhow, Aye.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I believe it is too black and white... for example this would exclude my school choice bills

I vote NAY

I would be very interested in working on a more comprehensive regional rights plank sometime down the line, but I agree that its current form is a little too restrictive.

Abstain

Aye

aye

Nay.

I support the federalist system outlined in the constitution instead.

I believe this plank needs more debate and clarification. Sorry for not having contributed anything to the discussion, I was way too busy with other things. So, while I agree with the main idea of this plank I vote

NAY

just because we need more debate on the issue.

Nay. I agree it's too vague and I also believe that the federal government should not have its role so diminished.

It's time to vote on friggin' Whig-IB Union, dammit.

As per the last vote, this shall be up for 24 hours unless the Chairman deems otherwise.

Nay.

Aye

Nay

I urge all party members to vote NAY on this.....we cooperate with the Bloc and since this proposal was announced, both the Bloc and our own party have realized there are better ways to cooperate

NAY

Nay

Indeed; Clarence and I have been in talks about different ways of co-operation, so this is technically outdated.

Nay - for the reasons that have been stated above, not because I am necessarily against a Whig/IB union

I would also like to request that the Whig Party hold an endorsement vote on the upcoming elections for Mideast Assembly (since I'm the current Mideast Governor and the bylaws make clear that a Whig member automatically receives the endorsement of the Whig Party I don't think we need an endorsement vote for the gubernatorial election). My opinion is that we should give non-Whig members the chance to receive our endorsement if they want it.

Alright...let's move on to that vote after we are done with the vote on the union

I must say, this has been an outstanding convention.

Thanks, Hagrid...

I will now allow per ZuWo's request for 48 hours for candidates for the Mideast Assembly to come before us to request our endorsement... Whig candidates are already endorsed so this goes for non-Whigs

I have a few questions:

1. How many assemblymen will  be elected?
2. How many people are running?
3. How many of them are Whigs?

I'm asking these questions because I think we shouldn't endorse more people than the amount that can be elected.

I humbly request the endorsement of the Whig Party in the upcoming Mideast Assembly elections.

ZuWo- can you please enlighten us?

SPC- your request has been noted and I'd like to announce my support for your endorsement to my fellow Whigs

I also respectfully ask for the endorsement of the Whig Party for my candidacy in the September Assembly election. While we don't agree on many issues, we all can agree that it is important for members of all parties to work across the aisle, to try to find common ground to solve the issues we currently face, bring forth fresh new ideas to the table and be constantly active in trying to move the Mideast and Atalsia in a better direction. I will be able to provide all of those qualities if elected to the Mideast Assembly. Any questions about my positions or any topic of interest, just ask! Thank you!  

There are currently four members of the Whig Party in the race for Mideast Assembly and a total of five candidates will be elected (it depends on the number of declared candidates but it looks like there are enough candidates for a five-seat Assembly).

For the record, I support SPC's candidacy as well.

Ditto.

While Gass means well to ask us to back his candidacy, it's the real life equivalent of Bernie Sanders asking for a Republican endorsement. Not 'appnin.

Also, is the Whig Liberty Caucus affiliated to the 'official' Whig party? It's acting as a party within a party. (I used the word 'party' too many times then.)

Aye on proposed amendment.

I totally understand this view. My goal for asking was primarily to introduce myself to your party members, make it known that I will be willing to work across the aisle and ask for at least some consideration.

It purports to be. I don't really have a problem with it, but it might be good to clarify the powers of subsidiary caucuses in our rules. Their ability to endorse a candidate isn't really official (a caucus endorsement would not appear on a presidential ballot), so I'd look into specifying that our caucuses would be able to make recommendations for endorsements. Kind of like how senate committees recommend whether or not legislation should be passed.

Hmm. Yes, some guidelines do need to be laid down because at the moment the Whig Liberty Caucus might as well be its own political party, not to mention they are most likely to endorse a non-Whig in the upcoming primary.

I'm also slightly worried that the Caucus is getting more attention that the actual base party. I'd like to see what Clarence thinks of this matter.

Thank you- I respect this and I believe all Whigs do... we look forward to working with you. Also, we will not simply reject your request for consideration. We will have an endorsement vote between you and SPC.

I don't have any problem with this... if the Caucus is getting more attention then our party, that is on us to fix! I've been around here for a while now and the lesson others have taught me is that the right needs to be united... that includes hawks like myself and the libertarians. I would rather have an active libertarian caucus then a separate party- right now we are under the same big tent but the caucus gives them a chance to express their views... I am ok with this

If you both want to clarify caucus rules- that is fine by me. But let's appreciate the caucus for what it is- a group WITHIN our party of highly motivated people who we will unite with in a general election despite disagreements before

I'm all for it

Right. I'll defer on the issue of Caucus rules until the next party Convention, if only because our current Convention will be ending soon.

On that issue, I was thinking that we should hold a vote as to where our next gathering shall be held. Bird-in-Hand is rather, ahem, low-key, for a major political party.

My suggestions are as follows:

Chugwater, Wyoming
Big Chimney, West Virginia
Humptulip, Washington
Canadian, Texas
Trophy Club, Texas
Slaughterville, Oklahoma
Three Legs Town, Ohio
Little Switzerland, North Carolina
Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
Ronkonkoma, New York
Elephant Butte, New Mexico
Weeping Water, Nebraska
Hungry Horse, Montana
Pine Stump Junction, Michigan
Rabbit Hash, Kentucky
Yellow Jacket, Colorado
Rough and Ready, California
Greasy Corner, Arkansas

I agree... somewhat. Having a separate Liberty Caucus that does not in general endorse Whig candidates could be problematic. However, in this case, we arranged to have a primary with the MCPR and IB, so we shouldn't then try to rig the primary so the Whig candidate wins automatically because there are more members in the Whigs than IB or MCPR. That would make it sort of difficult to work with those other parties. By agreeeing to a 3-way primary, we have defacto agreed already that a candidate from the IB or MCPR would in general be acceptable to us. If the Liberty Caucus begins endorsing non-Whigs over Whigs in a general election, then yes there would be an issue.

lol Hags.


Yes, I think for the time being we should see how everything works out. If however we run into a scenario whereby non-Whigs were being given preferential treatment over our own party's endorsed candidates, post primaries, then we may need to establish guidelines regulating such behaviour. Although, hopefully, if the Caucus system is not misused, this won't be necessary.

I've always wanted to have a convention in Truth or Consequences, NM.

Look at the list and then at the shape of my avatar and you will see that my choice is obvious.

Slaughterville, Oklahoma
xPingvin
More families should attend our conventions. I propose using this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7faZfUKlbsk) for promoting it on next convention because it fits town name.

It has been 48 hours since the Chair allowed non-Whig Mideast Assembly candidates to come forth for endorsements. SPC and Gass3268 have specifically asked for an endorsement, ProgressiveRealist has not, and therefore won't be on the endorsement ballot.

Also, I've taken the liberty to include a ballot allowing Whig members to choose the next location for our Party Convention. I've added all the current proposed locations and a write-in option.

As usual, 24 hours of voting unless the Chair deems otherwise.

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[] SPC
[] Gass3268

Whig Party City Conference Ballot

[] Chugwater, Wyoming
[] Big Chimney, West Virginia
[] Humptulip, Washington
[] Canadian, Texas
[] Trophy Club, Texas
[] Slaughterville, Oklahoma
[] Three Legs Town, Ohio
[] Little Switzerland, North Carolina
[] Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
[] Ronkonkoma, New York
[] Elephant Butte, New Mexico
[] Weeping Water, Nebraska
[] Hungry Horse, Montana
[] Pine Stump Junction, Michigan
[] Rabbit Hash, Kentucky
[] Yellow Jacket, Colorado
[] Rough and Ready, California
[] Greasy Corner, Arkansas
[] Truth, New Mexico
[] Consequences, New Mexico
[] Columbia, South Carolina
Write-in: ___________

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[1] SPC
[2] Gass3268

Whig Party City Conference Ballot

[1] Chugwater, Wyoming
[2] Big Chimney, West Virginia
[3] Humptulip, Washington
[4] Three Legs Town, Ohio
[5] Little Switzerland, North Carolina
[6] Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico
[7] Write-in: Butte, Montana

Mideast Assembly:

1. SPC
2. Gass

Conference Ballot:

1. Little Switzerland, North Carolina

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[1] SPC

Whig Party City Conference Ballot

[1] Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
[2] Ronkonkoma, New York
[3] Chugwater, Wyoming
[4] Big Chimney, West Virginia
[5] Hungry Horse, Montana
[6] Trophy Club, Texas
[7] Slaughterville, Oklahoma
[8] Elephant Butte, New Mexico

Also, once this vote is done, I think we oughta discuss our opinions on the Equal Rights Amendment... and possibly come up with some strategies to block its passage.

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[1] SPC

Whig Party City Conference Ballot

[1] Columbia, South Carolina
[2] Little Switzerland, North Carolina

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[1] SPC

Whig Party City Conference Ballot

[1] Columbia, South Carolina
[2] Yellow Jacket, Colorado
[3] Little Switzerland, North Carolina

I understand you won't be holding an endorsement vote in the Gubernatorial race. That's fine. ;)

I just want to take this opportunity to let you all know, that regardless of the results, the winner of this election will be the Mideast. We have two great candidates here, and while we have ideological and game reform differences on how to move this game forward, we're both active, competent, individuals.

If I'm elected as Governor, I'm sure many of you will be disappointed that your man ZuWo didn't win. ;) But let me assure you - under a Tmthforu94 Administration, when it comes to discussion and debate in our region, party labels are thrown out the window. I'm more than ready to work with all parties, including the Whigs, to create policies and reform that will benefit this game.

Thank you for your time,
Isaac :)

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

Abstain

Whig Party City Conference Ballot


Write-in: Salem, Oregon

Oh dear, I've been ousted! I'd kind of like my job back...

Mideast Endorsement:
SPC

Mideast Convention:
1: Columbia, SC
2. Truth, NM
3. Consequences, NM

The city is actually called 'Truth or Consequences, NM' Truth and Consequences are not two separate cities :P

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[1] SPC


Whig Party City Conference Ballot
[1] Slaughterville, Oklahoma

Oops. Didn't know that. Awks.

Mideast Assembly:
1. SPC

City:
1. Pine Stump Junction, Michigan

Mideast Assembly:
1. SPC

City:
1. Columbia, SC

Mideast Assembly
SPC

City
Columbia, SC

An excellent choice of region.

I'm not surprised by the results, but I thank you for your consideration. I hope the remainder of your convention in Bird-in-Hand is productive and successful.

Indeed. Indeed. :D

Thank you for your endorsement; it is truly appreciated. I wish Gass3268 the best of luck in the Mideast Assembly election and wish the Whig Party a successful convention.

The Whig/IB/MCPR Presidential Primary has begun.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=158928.0

You can vote here if you're a registered party member. Our candidate is Pingvin, for the record.

Unless there is any other business, I feel we can wrap up this convention.

Mr. Vice Chairman- I concur. I ask for a member to move to adjourn provided we see no other business...

I so move.

I've never been one for subtlety, so I'd like to move to be reinstated as party chairman.

Just to clarify, are you motioning for a vote of no confidence in the Chair?

I'm not sure. Removing the chair would result in having to remove the vice chair and so forth. Could we simply not pass a resolution replacing the chair with myself?

I'm not sure. There is nothing in the by-laws that permit that.

Is there any precedent for situations like this?

Not that I am aware. There is nothing that prohibits us from doing this, however. And a formal election is due by our bylaws, in any case.

I assume this is a suitable soundtrack for what I'm doing here.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27AMXHKmEeU)

The elections are due in April, August and December. So, in pure technical terms, there shouldn't be an election in September. Also, if you consider the Chairman vote of no confidence as an election then it can be argued that the by-law requirement has already been fulfilled.

I'm not taking 'sides', merely pointing out the awkwardness of this situation.

It'll be good for others to chip in.

I guess we'd have to call for a non-confidence vote in clarence, allow Supersonic to ascend to the chairmanship, vote for a new vice-chairman, and then call for another vote of non-confidence in the new chairman.

To be completely honest, there are a lot of steps in that process that would probably not be conducive to what Simfan wants to see happen. I'm all for trying it and letting the members decide, but clarence has been relatively active. If, for whatever reason, clarence did not survive the confidence vote, Supersonic has proven that he'd be a more-than-capable successor.

Usually non-confidence votes happen for a pretty good reason... At this time, I just don't think there'd be enough recognition that we need to change leadership.

That's my two cents's worth of straight talk.

Simfan- I am very glad to see that you are back. However, like Pingvin requested before and was denied- we can't simply give you the Chair position back. None of us wanted to do the vote of no confidence (I was originally hoping some one would jump in the race for Vice Chair!) but you had disappeared on us and we weren't sure when you'd return... now that you are back, I encourage you to run for party office again
I'd also advise that to serve in party office- you back our party members in the primary over members of other parties... Jbrase is a fine candidate who I will support if he wins the primary, but party offices inherently call for partisanship

Need I point out the obvious issue with this? The issue being that you get stuff like this:

To answer the question whether a new chairman can be elected now you need to have a look at our bylaws, which can be found in one of the older convention threads (I'm too lazy to do that now).

Regardless of whether it's technically possible or not, I don't see the need for changing our party leadership again. Both Clarence and Supersonic have managed the rest of this convention very well and should remain the leaders of our party in my opinion.

This is why we love Pingvin. ;)

Anyhow, without further adieu, I move for the closing of the Whig Party convention.

I presume we can keep this thread alive though for the sake of communication.

Seeing no other business- I declare this convention adjourned. I thank my predecessor as Chairman, the Vice Chairman, and all party members for a successful convention...

If it's my place to say, I think "the right" in Atlasia would greatly benefit by holding a joint primary to determine our candidate for the senate election. Although this system didn't necessarily work out for the Whigs in the presidential primary, it would be a good way to consolidate the right and ensure we elect a senator with the same values as clarence.

I'd like to submit myself for that primary.

Seconded. I nominate myself as well.

I nominate myself.

Are we ready to start voting now?

Yes, indeed.

As the issue is more pressing, the Senatorial primary vote shall now be held.

24 hours of voting.

[] JCL
[] 20RP12
[] Simfan

[1] 20RP12
[2] Simfan
[3] JCL

[1] 20RP12
[2] JCL
[3] Simfan

I'm only putting down my first choice, because it was hard enough choosing one out of the three, let alone ordering them.

[1] Simfan

[1] 20RP12
[2] Simfan
[3] JCL

Wait, is Goldwater in the primary? He's already declared. We'll have two Whig candidates this race.

Ah, shyte. I totally missed his declaration. I assume Supersonic missed it as well. I'm not sure how to proceed here.

Is Republitarian choosing to forgo the primary? I'd assumed we'd all accept it, but that might have been naïve of me. I'm not sure there's anything in our party rules about running primaries at all. So the interesting thing is, any Whig could probably choose to forgo the primary and still have to recieve our endorsement.

I'll let Supersonic chime in here about what we'll do with this vote. Beyond that, we should probably have a discussion about whether we'd like to make primaries a permanent part of our party (and how we'll enforce the results).

[1] 20RP12
[2] JCL
[3] Simfan

[1] 20RP12
[2] JCL
[3] Simfan

Wow, I got all sorts of confused, for some reason I thought we were voting on the Vice-Chairman of the Whig Party.  :o

lol, it's okay. You definitely took the smart approach. :P

So should I drop out of the race? Because I don't think two Whigs should be competing for the same senate seat...

[2] JCL
[3] 20RP12
[1] Simfan

Those preferences were tough.

Well, my vote might have been different if I'd known you were running. So I'm not going to tell anyone to drop out. I have no idea what we do in a situation like this one.


Luckily, this situation is for Supersonic to fix. :P

so what it is?

This is the Whig primary for the At-Large Senate Special Election.

wait I thought we were doing the Chairman vote..........

Me too...

As did I....

Not that it matters, but I thought the same thing initially as a casual bystander. :)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that got confused. :P

#whigsindisarray

j/k

Paging Mr. Chairman...?

So I'm confused

was I just endorsed for At-Large Senate??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Well, the vote was for the special senate election (as Supersonic said in his initial post), but a lot of people seem to have missed that.

Apparently, even though at lest one your votes was from someone who thought he was voting for Vice-Chairman...

Does anyone besides Goldwater intend to run for At-Large Senate?

20RP12 clearly did not intend to, Simfan left the party so votes for him are invalid, and JCL never declared he was running for At-Large Senate or voted for himself so votes for him can't be valid either.

So if the vote was for that, no one won :P

Edit: JCL clearly did. This is a mess. We should throw the vote out and start over.

Yay! Finally, a party less disorganized than Labor!

Well, I wouldn't go that far. :P

This party needs whipped into shape. ;)

I submitted to a primary as proof of intention to run.

Since it looks like we're gonna have to start the vote over, I'm announcing my intention to run the Whig primary.

Just to be sure, Carl, are you running for the At-Large Seat as well as the Mideast regional seat?  I want to get a primary poll going soon.

The Mideast Regional Seat.

Our sh*t is a mess here, guys.

Yeah, I apologize for my confusion. :P

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

I'm going to try to smooth things over here within the framework of our by-laws. (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Bylaws_of_the_Communitarian_Party)

Nothing in those by-laws talks about primaries. Since this vote was not official, in my capacity as nothing, I am calling the vote off immediately.

I move for a vote of non-confidence in Vice Chairman [vacancy]. I need a second.

Seconded for the love of Christ

Thank you, 20RP12. I should not have to do this, but our leadership is MIA and I interpret the by-laws as unclear enough to give me the wiggle room to proceed in whatever haphazard manner is convenient. I have no idea if this is the proper process, but hey—at least it makes it look like we're not a complete train wreck. :P

---

Do you agree to remove [vacancy] from the position of Vice Chairman?

Members, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting will last for 24 hours.

Aye

Aye

As we continue with this vote (we really need some official leadership here), I'm going to go off on a semantics-related tangent....

Because I just realized something extremely convenient. I already said it earlier, but I didn't realize the implications of it:

The primary process is an unofficial operation of the party since it is not outlined in the by-laws. Thus, I imagine anyone could technically run the primary. So I could go right ahead and create a thread in the Voting Booth where we'd select our candidate. The problem is, any serious vote would probably have to take at least 72 hours... at which point we get very close to the election and lose out on a lot of time for campaigning.

So—I am going to send private messages to JCL and Goldwater to see if they even want a primary, or if they'd rather just take their chances in the actual election. At this point, I honestly don't give a sh*t what we do. Most of their second preferences would go to the other Whig anyway. I'm just letting you know for the sake of transparency.

Aye

Did you not pass this, removing the whole process of "no confidence in vacancy"?

AYE

Ah. Thanks Simfan... I must have missed it since it wasn't on the Wiki. Folks, I am so sorry. I'm trying. This vote seemed like the only thing I had the power to do.

()

I do see some room for continuing with our current process though. The amendment Simfan cited stipulates that the Chariman must run a vote to fill the empty Vice Chair position within three days. The Chairman did not do so. Thus, we're in grey territory here.

Considering that reality, the amendment does not seem to apply. I will use this to our advantage and revert to the old system, if only for the sake of passing time before Supersonic returns. The spirit of the amendment would suggest that only Supersonic is entitled to run a vote for Vice Chairman. The letter of the law, however, says nothing about what we do if the Chairman does not run such a vote.

So we will continue the non-confidence vote in [vacancy]. If Supersonic does not return by the time this vote ends (10:30pm tomorrow night), I will run a vote for the position of Vice Chair myself.

And in the case that we do hold a vote for a new Vice-Chairman, I will run for that primary.

Now would be a good time for anyone else to declare too. For the record, I am absolutely not interested in the job, and will be eager to relinquish my power as De-Facto Hijacker of Party Affairs as soon as I can. :P

I nominate myself for Vice-Chairman.

With six (6) AYEs, zero (0) NAYs, and zero (0) ABSTAINs, this party has lost confidence in [vacancy]’s ability to fulfill the duties of Vice Chairman. [Vacancy] will no longer be the Vice Chairman of the Whig Party.

At this point, we will elect a new Vice Chairman. This amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156707.msg3376799#msg3376799) provides no provision for electing a new Vice Chairman if the Chairman of the party neglected to hold a vote for that position within three days of its becoming vacant. As such, I am entering the vacuum left by this loophole and I am claiming emergency powers to administer a vote for the vice chairmanship. We will use preferential voting. Voting will last for 72 hours.

VICE CHARIMAN BALLOT

[ ] 20RP12
[ ] Goldwater
[ ] Write-in: ___________

VICE CHARIMAN BALLOT

[1] 20RP12
[2] Goldwater
[3] Write-in: Cathcon

[1] Goldwater
[2] 20RP12

I will also note that I have not yet heard back from one of our two candidates for the special senate election. The longer I go without hearing anything, the more likely it is that we will not have a primary. To be candid, it is already very unlikely that we will have one.

[1] Goldwater
[2] 20RP12

[1] 20RP12
[2] Goldwater

[1] 20RP12
[2] Goldwater

Sorry for the delay, folks. With an abysmal five voters, the quota for winning the vice chairmanship is three (3).

Round 1

20RP12 - 3
Goldwater - 2

20RP12 reaches quota on the first round and is elected to the position of vice chairman of the Whig party.

---

I apologize for the state of disarray this party fell into. I hope my hijacking of this convention wasn't too unwelcome... I really felt like we needed to give ourselves some official leadership in Supersonic's absence, and the vice chairman vote was the only way to do it. I will now happily step aside for 20RP12.

Congrats. :)

Woohoo! Thanks guys!

I would like to request the Whig Party's endorsement in the Northeast Gubernatorial race.

In light of Simfan's departure to the People's Party and in light of the disarray in the party, I recommend a party reorganization.

Agreed.

So is Supersonic still the Chairman despite being absent? The election of 20RP12 was for vice-chairman, correct?

I'm fine with a reorganization, just a bit unsure of what the current "organization" for lack of a better term is.

I'm fine with reorganizing.