The National Gazette (Coverage of the February 2018 election)

[Terry the Fat Shark]

oh please don't go spouting off supposed moral values, you guys have hardly been a beacon of non partisan hope either

> a partisan "non-partisan" party, have you ever seen such a thing?

I am 100% sure if it was reversed, you'd be pushing the alliance person as much as possible

spare us the moral high ground, please.

When did I claim the "moral high ground"? That's disingenuous. My post said "don't vote for a person who doesn't want to be voted for". And, to all those who are wondering, I would not be pushing the Alliance person, guarantee. I would actively make sure none from the Alliance caucus would do so, because that's against the wishes of the candidate. Screenshot this post if you want.

Also, I bet you can't handle this fact lol, but my House campaign was 99.99% my work. Weird, right?

the feds had the votes and they were competing on whether or not to put you over or that other person (don't remember the name lol), but yeah.

[wxtransit]

oh please don't go spouting off supposed moral values, you guys have hardly been a beacon of non partisan hope either

> a partisan "non-partisan" party, have you ever seen such a thing?

I am 100% sure if it was reversed, you'd be pushing the alliance person as much as possible

spare us the moral high ground, please.

When did I claim the "moral high ground"? That's disingenuous. My post said "don't vote for a person who doesn't want to be voted for". And, to all those who are wondering, I would not be pushing the Alliance person, guarantee. I would actively make sure none from the Alliance caucus would do so, because that's against the wishes of the candidate. Screenshot this post if you want.

Also, I bet you can't handle this fact lol, but my House campaign was 99.99% my work. Weird, right?

the feds had the votes and they were competing on whether or not to put you over or that other person (don't remember the name lol), but yeah.

7 out of the 8 people that voted for me I contacted personally. Alright, it was 87.5% my work,

[Terry the Fat Shark]

oh please don't go spouting off supposed moral values, you guys have hardly been a beacon of non partisan hope either

> a partisan "non-partisan" party, have you ever seen such a thing?

I am 100% sure if it was reversed, you'd be pushing the alliance person as much as possible

spare us the moral high ground, please.

When did I claim the "moral high ground"? That's disingenuous. My post said "don't vote for a person who doesn't want to be voted for". And, to all those who are wondering, I would not be pushing the Alliance person, guarantee. I would actively make sure none from the Alliance caucus would do so, because that's against the wishes of the candidate. Screenshot this post if you want.

Also, I bet you can't handle this fact lol, but my House campaign was 99.99% my work. Weird, right?

the feds had the votes and they were competing on whether or not to put you over or that other person (don't remember the name lol), but yeah.

7 out of the 8 people that voted for me I contacted personally. Alright, it was 87.5% my work,

dont forget about 2nd and 3rds too, I don't think 8 is enough to get over the edge on 1sts

[Lumine]

It certainly makes sense to protect a House majority by all means possible, and acting otherwise would be politically unwise regardless of the party. However, one can also argue it's not exactly healthy for our democracy to elect a seat in the House which will not be held by the candidate in question and will instead be determined by leadership appointment.

It's more of a vote to give carte blanche for a future appointment, which is a curious (and a fascinating case study for analysis of Atlasian politics) way to conduct an election.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

It certainly makes sense to protect a House majority by all means possible, and acting otherwise would be politically unwise regardless of the party. However, one can also argue it's not exactly healthy for our democracy to elect a seat in the House which will not be held by the candidate in question and will instead be determined by leadership appointment.

It's more of a vote to give carte blanche for a future appointment, which is a curious (and a fascinating case study for analysis of Atlasian politics) way to conduct an election.

this is kind of a bad analogy, but MO Sen 2000 could kind of be an example

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Wait, I thought there were only 9 candidates who didn't drop out.

9 declared candidates and 1 write in candidate.

Didn't RC20XX drop out?

Technically too late for him to drop off the ballot, but that hasn’t stopped people from 1st preffing him lmao

It's frankly sad that the Federalist leadership would rather vote for a person who doesn't want to be voted in because of RL health reasons than a Representative that has a 100% activity record, sponsored the second-most bills, and has a plan for his next term, just because of partisan reasons. If you want to prove you really are for a "More Welcoming Atlasia" and you aren't party hacks, I would say it is wise to those who haven't voted yet to consider their vote if they plan to first preference ReaganClinton.

You guys are killing me. Don't vote me in again.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Wait, I thought there were only 9 candidates who didn't drop out.

9 declared candidates and 1 write in candidate.

Didn't RC20XX drop out?

Technically too late for him to drop off the ballot, but that hasn’t stopped people from 1st preffing him lmao

It's frankly sad that the Federalist leadership would rather vote for a person who doesn't want to be voted in because of RL health reasons than a Representative that has a 100% activity record, sponsored the second-most bills, and has a plan for his next term, just because of partisan reasons. If you want to prove you really are for a "More Welcoming Atlasia" and you aren't party hacks, I would say it is wise to those who haven't voted yet to consider their vote if they plan to first preference ReaganClinton.

The feds are morally bankrupt necromancers hellbent on retaining their power.

If they want to prove me wrong, they can appoint wxtransit in place of the graveyard zombie fed if he wins.

[fhtagn]

Wait, I thought there were only 9 candidates who didn't drop out.

9 declared candidates and 1 write in candidate.

Didn't RC20XX drop out?

Technically too late for him to drop off the ballot, but that hasn’t stopped people from 1st preffing him lmao

It's frankly sad that the Federalist leadership would rather vote for a person who doesn't want to be voted in because of RL health reasons than a Representative that has a 100% activity record, sponsored the second-most bills, and has a plan for his next term, just because of partisan reasons. If you want to prove you really are for a "More Welcoming Atlasia" and you aren't party hacks, I would say it is wise to those who haven't voted yet to consider their vote if they plan to first preference ReaganClinton.

The feds are morally bankrupt necromancers hellbent on retaining their power.

If they want to prove me wrong, they can appoint wxtransit in place of the graveyard zombie fed if he wins.

Just admit you're an Adam Griffin sock already

[Poirot]

It certainly makes sense to protect a House majority by all means possible, and acting otherwise would be politically unwise regardless of the party. However, one can also argue it's not exactly healthy for our democracy to elect a seat in the House which will not be held by the candidate in question and will instead be determined by leadership appointment.

It's more of a vote to give carte blanche for a future appointment, which is a curious (and a fascinating case study for analysis of Atlasian politics) way to conduct an election.

Instead of voting for someone who asks not to be elected there could have decided to vote for a Federalist write-in candidate, it would make more sense. Elections produce odds things. In the January regional South elections you had the Federalists choosing to elect one of their candidate who  had not been online for a month over one of their canddiate who was there (and also discarding the no two posts in the both rule).

I hope we don't see abuse of the replacement rule - run someone who is popular and after a couple of weeks resign to be replaced by someone less well known or popular.

Is this election on track to have less votes than previous ones? 

[Lumine]

It certainly makes sense to protect a House majority by all means possible, and acting otherwise would be politically unwise regardless of the party. However, one can also argue it's not exactly healthy for our democracy to elect a seat in the House which will not be held by the candidate in question and will instead be determined by leadership appointment.

It's more of a vote to give carte blanche for a future appointment, which is a curious (and a fascinating case study for analysis of Atlasian politics) way to conduct an election.

Instead of voting for someone who asks not to be elected there could have decided to vote for a Federalist write-in candidate, it would make more sense. Elections produce odds things. In the January regional South elections you had the Federalists choosing to elect one of their candidate who  had not been online for a month over one of their canddiate who was there (and also discarding the no two posts in the both rule).

I hope we don't see abuse of the replacement rule - run someone who is popular and after a couple of weeks resign to be replaced by someone less well known or popular.

Is this election on track to have less votes than previous ones? 

I hope there isn't abuse as well, I do share the assessment that a write-in campaign would certainly be more transparent, if not as nearly as pragmatic.

I believe so, Presidential Elections over the past three years tend to move between 120 and 100 votes, and we stand currently at 89 even with a handful of invalid votes. It can easily surpass 100 with a last minute surge, but this will be one of the elections with the lowest turnout in recent years.

[Sestak]

PSA to left: first-preference wxtransit for House to break the one-party state!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Results

1st Ballot 2nd Ballot Fhtagn     48%     57% Pericles     27%     43% Spiral     21%     —% Others     03%     —%

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

0		4		1		1		2		1		0
ALL		FED		LAB		PAX		PUP		TOSS		OTH
05%		53%		12%		12%		18%		—		00%

(Apologies for the late update; for some odd reason, "I'm covering a very important presidential election in Atlasia" is not a valid excuse to not turn in homework.)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

(Apologies for the late update; for some odd reason, "I'm covering a very important presidential election in Atlasia" is not a valid excuse to not turn in homework.)

School has the wrong priorities!

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Wow, that map is turning out to look kind of pretty.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Wow, that map is turning out to look kind of pretty.

Too bad orange is an ugly color.

Ugly color for an ugly party.

[Pericles]

Wow, that map is turning out to look kind of pretty.

Too bad orange is an ugly color.

Ugly color for an ugly party.

Orange is a great color. But it has been defiled by the ugly Federalists.

[_]

6-6 TIE FOR RC AND TRANSIT!!
VOTE TRANSIT TO STOP PURE PARTISANSHIP AND KEEP A GREAT REPRESENTATIVE IN OFFICE!

[Sestak]

IT'S OVER!!!


TRANSIT WINS!!!!!!!!!

Congratulations Speaker-elect W. X. Transit!

[_]

10-7 TRANSIT WINS!!!!!!!!!!!

FEDERALISTS LOSE SENATE AND HOUSE MAJORITY!

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Thank Dave that's over.

[Pericles]

Thank Dave that's over.

[OSR stands with Israel]

10-7 TRANSIT WINS!!!!!!!!!!!

FEDERALISTS LOSE SENATE AND HOUSE MAJORITY!

NOOOO

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

10-7 TRANSIT WINS!!!!!!!!!!!

FEDERALISTS LOSE SENATE AND HOUSE MAJORITY!

NOOOO

insert Darth Vader Nooooo gif here

[cinyc]

10-7 TRANSIT WINS!!!!!!!!!!!

FEDERALISTS LOSE SENATE AND HOUSE MAJORITY!

I’m not sure how the Federalists could lose a Senate Majority that they don’t have. The current Senate only has 2 registered Federalists in it. Even if you included me as a Federalist (which I am not - I’m an independent), that’s still not enough for a Senate majority.

[Sestak]

10-7 TRANSIT WINS!!!!!!!!!!!

FEDERALISTS LOSE SENATE AND HOUSE MAJORITY!

I’m not sure how the Federalists could lose a Senate Majority that they don’t have. The current Senate only has 2 registered Federalists in it. Even if you included me as a Federalist (which I am not - I’m an independent), that’s still not enough for a Senate majority.

Plus you plus PiT as tiebreaker is technically a majority, right?