Civil War II

[True Democrat]

Well besides some things being implausible for this period of time I ahve one major quarrel with this timeline and that is the inclusion of Schmitz. Schmitz was, in 1960, 30 years old, ie he was not actually old enough to meet the age requirements set in the Constitution for the Vice Presidency. Also according to Wikipedia, gotta love Wikipedia, in 1960 John Schmitz was serving in the United States Marine Corps as a jet fighter and helocopter pilot with the rank of Lieutenent Colonel. Even if you somehow butterflied this away it still would not make him old enough to serve as Vice President of the United States of America.

So you may want to get another person to fill Schmitz's shoes if you actually want this story to be somewhat in line with key facts.

Yeah.  I did write down his age when he was running for the Chairmanship, but I forgot to look it up for this.  Hold on, I'm going to change that.  Changed to Goldwater.  What else don't you find plaudible?  I mean, I realize a lot of things would never happen, but domestically, what do you find implausible?

[Colin]

Well besides some things being implausible for this period of time I ahve one major quarrel with this timeline and that is the inclusion of Schmitz. Schmitz was, in 1960, 30 years old, ie he was not actually old enough to meet the age requirements set in the Constitution for the Vice Presidency. Also according to Wikipedia, gotta love Wikipedia, in 1960 John Schmitz was serving in the United States Marine Corps as a jet fighter and helocopter pilot with the rank of Lieutenent Colonel. Even if you somehow butterflied this away it still would not make him old enough to serve as Vice President of the United States of America.

So you may want to get another person to fill Schmitz's shoes if you actually want this story to be somewhat in line with key facts.

Yeah.  I did write down his age when he was running for the Chairmanship, but I forgot to look it up for this.  Hold on, I'm going to change that.  Changed to Goldwater.  What else don't you find plaudible?  I mean, I realize a lot of things would never happen, but domestically, what do you find implausible?

Well just two things first. A flat tax in the 1950's? The flat tax as a modern idea really did not take off until the 70's and early 80's with Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys and even then it did not take off as a viable idea until it was first implemented in the Baltic countries in the mid 90's. Having a system like this come around in the 1950's, when it had not even been around as an economic idea yet, is just proposterous in my mind.

Also the amendment lowering the age for all federal office to 18 seems just as preposterous in my mind since I can never see anything like that brought up before the congress, and considering the debate that was occuring on the vote and conscription age at that time I would seriously doubt it would pass.

Thirdly I highly, highly, doubt that this Independent Reformer Party would go from a conglomeration of a bunch of independents to the White House in what seems like less than two years just seems very implausible to me, even with a unpopular President and a segregationist running on the Democratic side. You must remember that, unless you are basically going to make these Independent Reformers the new second party in a two party system, like the Republicans supplanting the Whigs, you have to keep them small. I could see a third party winning 40-60 seats in the House and maybe a 100 electoral votes at the very highest but a brand new party coming in a landsliding the two major parties is kind of insane.

I'm probably being overly critical but then again I think their are some serious flaws in the TL itself as I stated above. It's interesting, I'll give you that, but somethings seem out of place or just plain implausible.

My advice is to keep the IRP small for some time. Work on implementing some sort of electoral reform, such as proportional representation, so that then you can have some third party action.

[True Democrat]

Well besides some things being implausible for this period of time I ahve one major quarrel with this timeline and that is the inclusion of Schmitz. Schmitz was, in 1960, 30 years old, ie he was not actually old enough to meet the age requirements set in the Constitution for the Vice Presidency. Also according to Wikipedia, gotta love Wikipedia, in 1960 John Schmitz was serving in the United States Marine Corps as a jet fighter and helocopter pilot with the rank of Lieutenent Colonel. Even if you somehow butterflied this away it still would not make him old enough to serve as Vice President of the United States of America.

So you may want to get another person to fill Schmitz's shoes if you actually want this story to be somewhat in line with key facts.

Yeah.  I did write down his age when he was running for the Chairmanship, but I forgot to look it up for this.  Hold on, I'm going to change that.  Changed to Goldwater.  What else don't you find plaudible?  I mean, I realize a lot of things would never happen, but domestically, what do you find implausible?

Well just two things first. A flat tax in the 1950's? The flat tax as a modern idea really did not take off until the 70's and early 80's with Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys and even then it did not take off as a viable idea until it was first implemented in the Baltic countries in the mid 90's. Having a system like this come around in the 1950's, when it had not even been around as an economic idea yet, is just proposterous in my mind.

Also the amendment lowering the age for all federal office to 18 seems just as preposterous in my mind since I can never see anything like that brought up before the congress, and considering the debate that was occuring on the vote and conscription age at that time I would seriously doubt it would pass.

Thirdly I highly, highly, doubt that this Independent Reformer Party would go from a conglomeration of a bunch of independents to the White House in what seems like less than two years just seems very implausible to me, even with a unpopular President and a segregationist running on the Democratic side. You must remember that, unless you are basically going to make these Independent Reformers the new second party in a two party system, like the Republicans supplanting the Whigs, you have to keep them small. I could see a third party winning 40-60 seats in the House and maybe a 100 electoral votes at the very highest but a brand new party coming in a landsliding the two major parties is kind of insane.

I'm probably being overly critical but then again I think their are some serious flaws in the TL itself as I stated above. It's interesting, I'll give you that, but somethings seem out of place or just plain implausible.

My advice is to keep the IRP small for some time. Work on implementing some sort of electoral reform, such as proportional representation, so that then you can have some third party action.

Well, something might happen to one of the other parties.

Also, with the amendment, the main point is to lower the voting age, but the part about lowering federal office is just an attempt by the Independent Reformers to get the youth vote.

[Colin]

Well besides some things being implausible for this period of time I ahve one major quarrel with this timeline and that is the inclusion of Schmitz. Schmitz was, in 1960, 30 years old, ie he was not actually old enough to meet the age requirements set in the Constitution for the Vice Presidency. Also according to Wikipedia, gotta love Wikipedia, in 1960 John Schmitz was serving in the United States Marine Corps as a jet fighter and helocopter pilot with the rank of Lieutenent Colonel. Even if you somehow butterflied this away it still would not make him old enough to serve as Vice President of the United States of America.

So you may want to get another person to fill Schmitz's shoes if you actually want this story to be somewhat in line with key facts.

Yeah.  I did write down his age when he was running for the Chairmanship, but I forgot to look it up for this.  Hold on, I'm going to change that.  Changed to Goldwater.  What else don't you find plaudible?  I mean, I realize a lot of things would never happen, but domestically, what do you find implausible?

Well just two things first. A flat tax in the 1950's? The flat tax as a modern idea really did not take off until the 70's and early 80's with Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys and even then it did not take off as a viable idea until it was first implemented in the Baltic countries in the mid 90's. Having a system like this come around in the 1950's, when it had not even been around as an economic idea yet, is just proposterous in my mind.

Also the amendment lowering the age for all federal office to 18 seems just as preposterous in my mind since I can never see anything like that brought up before the congress, and considering the debate that was occuring on the vote and conscription age at that time I would seriously doubt it would pass.

Thirdly I highly, highly, doubt that this Independent Reformer Party would go from a conglomeration of a bunch of independents to the White House in what seems like less than two years just seems very implausible to me, even with a unpopular President and a segregationist running on the Democratic side. You must remember that, unless you are basically going to make these Independent Reformers the new second party in a two party system, like the Republicans supplanting the Whigs, you have to keep them small. I could see a third party winning 40-60 seats in the House and maybe a 100 electoral votes at the very highest but a brand new party coming in a landsliding the two major parties is kind of insane.

I'm probably being overly critical but then again I think their are some serious flaws in the TL itself as I stated above. It's interesting, I'll give you that, but somethings seem out of place or just plain implausible.

My advice is to keep the IRP small for some time. Work on implementing some sort of electoral reform, such as proportional representation, so that then you can have some third party action.

Well, something might happen to one of the other parties.

Also, with the amendment, the main point is to lower the voting age, but the part about lowering federal office is just an attempt by the Independent Reformers to get the youth vote.

Which at that time almost didn't exist. You have to remember that political pandering of the sort in which you have the IRP participating in really didn't become a factor until the late '60s. Plus the youth vote was even around during the '50s or earlier for that matter. A high voting age plus general apathy did, as now, turn away young voters.

[Lincoln Republican]

Never underestimate the tremendous appeal and the dynamite campaign power of the Romney/Goldwater ticket.

That combination is politically awesome. 

[True Democrat]

Sorry guys, but I got kind of bored with this, and I led it into a direction that I don't really like.  If someone wants to take it over, that's fine with me.

[MasterJedi]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Bacon King]

aww...

[True Democrat]

December 12, 1962

Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor, reveals a scandal involving the top members of the Independent Reform Party.  This scandal involves thousands of fake and dead voters in Illinois, California, New York, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  After the recent death of Party Chairman Wendell Wilkie earlier in the year and ascension of Jerry Brown, the party has taken a leftist turn, from its traditionally libertarian views.  This scandals involves the recording of thousands of voters who simply didn't vote.  This is extremely suprising, as the point of the Independent Reformers was to end corruption.  Implicated in this scandal are Brown, Joe Kennedy Jr., and even as far reaching as Vice-President Goldwater.

December 18, 1962

Chairman Jerry Brown officially resigns and admits to election fraud.  He promises to work with the Congressional probe launched two days earlier.

January 17, 1963

Only four days before the State of the Union, the Congressional probe releases its findings.  Both Brown and Goldwater are shown to be directly connected to the scandal.

January 18, 1963

Vice-President Barry Goldwater resigns the Vice-Presidency of the United States because of his involvement in the voter fraud scandal.  The Independent Reform Party is in panic.  With President Romney's State of the Union only three days away, they know he must name a new, popular Vice-President.  However, every major Indepedent Reformer will not accept the position

January 21, 1963

In his state of the union, Romney decides to ignore the scandal, rather than addressing it directly.  Many analysts call this a bad move politically.  The only part that has any relation to the scandal is when Romney announces who he is nominating for Vice-President.  Romney could find no prominent Independent Reformer to take the job, so he instead nominates a well-liked figure from all three parties: Former Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican.  Rockefeller is seen as a good man in bad times in Nixon's administration.  At the end of Nixon's reign, Rockefeller still had a 53-18 approval rating, making him the most popular figure in the Nixon administration.

February 4, 1963

After the passage of the 22nd amendment in 1955, which allows for a VP to be nominated in case of death or resignation, and subsequent approval by only the Senate, it must be exercised for the second time.  The first time was to allow Nixon to be nominated after Folsom was elevated to the Presidency (after Eisenhower's death).  The Senate takes up the matter as soon as it can, and on the 4th of February, overwhelmingly approves Rockefeller:

Republicans:
Aye: 35
Nay: 1
Abstain: 1

Democrats:
Aye: 30
Nay: 4
Abstain: 2
Not Voting: 3

Independent Reformers:
Aye: 18
Nay: 3
Abstain: 1

Independents:
Aye: 2
Nay: 0

Total:
Aye: 85
Nay: 8
Abstain: 4
Not Voting: 3

Rockefeller is sworn in the next day.


Here's just a new updated list of all the Presidents and VPs:

Presidents:

FDR (D): March 4, 1932 - August 25, 1944
Henry Wallace (D): August 25, 1944 - January 20, 1945
Dewey (R): January 20, 1945 - January 20, 1953
Eisenhower (R): January 20, 1953 - April 21, 1954
Folsom (D,I): April 21, 1954 - January 20, 1957 (Acting President January 20, 1953 - January 27, 1954)
Nixon (I, but aligned with R): January 20, 1957 - January 20, 1961
George Romney (IR): January 20, 1961 - ?

Vice-Presidents:
Henry Wallace (D): January 20, 1940 - August 25, 1944
Vacant: August 25, 1944 - January 20, 1945
Bricker (R): January 20, 1945 - January 20, 1953
Folsom (D): January 20, 1953 - April 21, 1954
Vacant: April 21, 1954 - July 10, 1955
Nixon (I, aligned with R): July 10, 1955 - January 20, 1957
Rockefeller (R): January 20, 1957 - January 20, 1961
Goldwater (IR): January 20, 1961 - January 18, 1963
Vacant: January 18, 1963 - February 5, 1963
Rockefeller (R): February 5, 1963 - ?