|
QuoProQuid posted:Now someone just needs to make a musical about Henry Clay or Daniel Webster. The Great Triumviroverrated.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 14:10 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:56 |
|
Tao Jones posted:ugh I'm just going to write in William Pitt for president as a protest vote, adams is literally caesar if you're writing in Pitt I'm writing in that charismatic new First Consul of France
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 15:14 |
|
QuoProQuid posted:The real reason I started this thread was to get a bunch of goons really into musical theatre. I would love the poo poo out of a "gently caress Andrew Jackson" musical.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 22:34 |
|
karmicknight posted:I would love the poo poo out of a "gently caress Andrew Jackson" musical. Ironically enough... Though I guess based on the wiki summary it's slightly less "gently caress Andrew Jackson" and more "He was probably a bad guy but what if he's not entirely terrible?"
|
# ? Dec 11, 2015 08:06 |
|
karmicknight posted:I would love the poo poo out of a "gently caress Andrew Jackson" musical. I am from North Carolina originally, so there are three Presidents born there, arguably. Jackson is arguable, because he was born near the border, and claimed to be from the South Carolina side, but legend has it was the North Carolina side. The other two are Polk and Andrew Johnson. So yes, my state is responsible for some of the worst presidents. Of course, every last one of these bastards hosed off to Tennessee for their political careers, but still...
|
# ? Dec 11, 2015 22:24 |
|
foobardog posted:I am from North Carolina originally, so there are three Presidents born there, arguably. Jackson is arguable, because he was born near the border, and claimed to be from the South Carolina side, but legend has it was the North Carolina side. The other two are Polk and Andrew Johnson. So yes, my state is responsible for some of the worst presidents. Of course, every last one of these bastards hosed off to Tennessee for their political careers, but still... Hey don't spoil elections that haven't happened yet
|
# ? Dec 12, 2015 02:58 |
|
foobardog posted:I am from North Carolina originally, so there are three Presidents born there, arguably. Jackson is arguable, because he was born near the border, and claimed to be from the South Carolina side, but legend has it was the North Carolina side. The other two are Polk and Andrew Johnson. So yes, my state is responsible for some of the worst presidents. Of course, every last one of these bastards hosed off to Tennessee for their political careers, but still...
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 00:26 |
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Ironically enough... I was in this over the summer. I got to be VP Martin Van Buren. It's a very fun, funny, high energy musical.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 00:31 |
|
Thank you all for voting. In what is becoming known as the Revolution of 1800, John Jay has been elected President. His ascension is thought to be the result of a rare Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian alliance and Jay's intent to serve only a single term. In a humiliating demotion, This role reversal also has many wondering if it might be time to reform the Electoral College. Making the runner-up Vice President seems like a recipe for disaster. RESULTS BREAKDOWN Most popular candidates: 1. John Jay – 65 votes (73%) 2. John Adams – 45 votes (50.6%) 3. Aaron Burr – 34 votes (38.2%) 4. Thomas Jefferson – 19 votes (21.3%) 5. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – 15 votes (16.9%) Most popular tickets: 1. John Adams / John Jay – 26 votes 2. Aaron Burr / John Jay – 22 votes 3. Aaron Burr / John Adams – 9 votes 4. John Jay / Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – 9 votes 5. Thomas Jefferson / John Jay – 8 votes 6. Thomas Jefferson / John Adams – 6 votes 7. John Adams / Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – 4 votes 8. Thomas Jefferson / Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – 2 votes Most popular parties: 1. Federalist Party – 125 votes (70.2%) 2. Democratic-Republican Party – 52 votes (29.8%) QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 18:07 on Dec 13, 2015 |
# ? Dec 13, 2015 14:15 |
|
ELECTION OF 1804 Click here to vote in the Election of 1804! Background: Four years after Jefferson’s first election, the United States seems back on track. Adams’s efforts to end the Quasi War have allowed American trade to flow back into Europe, bringing about an economic boom. A ceasefire between England and France has allowed tensions to cool in the United States, ending political agitation. A repeal of most of the Alien and Sedition Acts has allowed printers to reopen, restoring freedom of speech to even the strongest of Federalist strongholds. Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana has only further bolstered his popularity and many poor farmers are already making plans to settle in the West. Only two dark spots remain on the horizon. First, Native American tribes have threatened to halt American expansion by any means necessary. Second, the constitutional prohibition on the slave trade is set to expire in 1808. Though these events have some worried, the public believes that both issues can be resolved without much dispute. The only real source of tension in the new republic is the death of Alexander Hamilton at the hands of sitting Vice President Aaron Burr. Spurred by Hamilton’s sabotage of Aaron Burr’s political career, first by preventing his ascension to the Presidency and second by stopping his hijacking of the New York Federalist Party, Aaron Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel. Though many expected the dispute to end without bloodshed, it instead ended with Burr killing Hamilton. The details of this incident are disputed. Hamilton’s supporters allege that Burr shot Hamilton in cold blood after Hamilton signaled his intent to spare Burr. Burr, by contrast, believes that the whole duel was an elaborate suicide. According to Burr, Hamilton realized that the only way to lock Burr out of power was by making him responsible for the death of the “Federalist colossus.” Whatever the reason, the incident has made Burr a pariah among both the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans. New York and New Jersey have indicted the Vice President on murder charges and have called for his arrest. Burr’s former friends in France and England have refused to shelter him and instead are calling for his death. Burr himself is making plans to flee to New Orleans after his term, so as to start a new life in the West. The Federalist Party is currently in a death spiral, with its two most prominent members now dead or disgraced. The Candidates: DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATES: Presidential Nominee: Thomas Jefferson
Vice Presidential Nominee: George Clinton
FEDERALIST PARTY CANDIDATES: Presidential Nominee: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Vice Presidential Nominee: Rufus King
QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 16:16 on Dec 13, 2015 |
# ? Dec 13, 2015 14:15 |
|
I liked the previous system that gave the vice presidency to the runner up a lot, since it kept presidents in check and kept them from simply putting up a "secretary" to their own "elected king". Anyway, I went for Jefferson/Clinton. At least they want to end the slave trade and want to improve ties with the nation that will undoubtedly win the war in Europe: France. Let's face it, Napoleon Bonaparte is an unstoppable force of nature and in fact a manifestation of the world spirit, to quote a German philosopher. Still, I am slightly miffed that I can't vote for an Adams this time.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 14:44 |
|
Pinckney/King ’04 Now that Hamilton, pbuh, is no longer with us, no one can accuse Pinckney of being a puppet.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 15:01 |
Jefferson/Clinton, though more like "against" vote for Pickney/King, rather than outright "for" vote.
|
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 15:20 |
|
I'm annoyed that I have to vote for a slave owner but Pinckney is horrible in every single way so Jefferson it is.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 15:24 |
|
This new voting system is dumb, I want King/Clinton >:|
GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 16:25 on Dec 13, 2015 |
# ? Dec 13, 2015 15:48 |
|
Hooray for John Jay I guess I'll vote for Pinckney and just pray and hope he gets killed allowing Rufus to be president
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:01 |
|
vv whoops abstain then, or writing in Satan. in case I wasn't clear my final position is Satan/King 1804 the paradigm shift has issued a correction as of 18:19 on Dec 13, 2015 |
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:05 |
|
the_paradigm_shift posted:Pinckney/King mostly for the alt-history aspect and I'll be damned if I vote for a slaveowner I've got some bad news....
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:06 |
|
the_paradigm_shift posted:vv whoops abstain then, or writing in Satan. Sorry, but the Marquis de Sade is constitutionally ineligible for the office of president.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:19 |
|
QuoProQuid posted:Sorry, but the Marquis de Sade is constitutionally ineligible for the office of president. Only becomes a concern if he wins, correct?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:20 |
|
Two slaveholders this time. Voted for Jefferson, but really we should be voting to tear this awful nation to the ground.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:28 |
|
What a godawful slate of candidates. King is the only one I would want to vote for, but Pinckney just sucks.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 18:32 |
|
voted federalist, it's what hamilton would've wantedPlatystemon posted:pbuh
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 19:01 |
|
Federalists only.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 19:17 |
|
Was there anyone else notable running in this election that just didn't receive any electoral votes, or was this really all there was?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 19:19 |
|
Welcome folks, to lovely Slate of Candidates Era. Corpse of Hamilton (pbuh)/Rufus King 1804. GlyphGryph posted:Was there anyone else notable running in this election that just didn't receive any electoral votes, or was this really all there was? Candidates are just going to get worse until the gently caress Andrew Jackson Alliance begins to give us options again. These Democratic-Republicans will do what His Elective Majesty Mr. Adams couldn't do, destroy the Republic.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 19:32 |
|
GlyphGryph posted:Was there anyone else notable running in this election that just didn't receive any electoral votes, or was this really all there was? Jefferson's massive popularity, the Democratic-Republican control of the press, and logistical restrictions in challenging either of the two parties really discouraged any third parties. The tertium quids are making some noise about Jefferson betraying his ideals via the Louisiana Purchase and Compact of 1802, but they aren't at the point where they are willing to challenge their party leader. As we move through the Era of Good Feelings, there's not going to be a lot of candidates to challenge the Democratic-Republican consensus.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 19:36 |
|
What's been interesting to me about this thread is that the United States, despite its aristocracy's original intent to not have parties and sort of elect among themselves, has been relegated to two party dominance for basically its whole existence. When the war of 1812 goes down, the Federalists basically disappear, and the Democratic-Republicans split into the Whigs and Democrats, right? Is there really ever a meaningful alternative for more than an election cycle or so?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 21:08 |
|
the previous four elections?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 21:09 |
|
So one thing that's a big deal in the modern day political equation is primaries. In a way, primary's have become the "real" election between all of the actual US voting blocks, with the general being something of a run off between the two chosen coalitions. In some elections this has obviously mattered more than others. When did primaries start being a thing? Previous to this we obviously had a number of people running, but it feels like it's gonna be 1v1 for Presidents from here on out, but especially once we get into recent history there's gonna be some people that would have had a real chance of winning if they'd been voted for in the primaries. Are we just gonna ignore that and stick to generals or what?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 21:50 |
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:the previous four elections? Those have all been Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists though? Unless you mean the first one in which it was Washington (who considered himself above it all but was basically a Federalist) and a bunch of also-rans from the same party. In what universe are you seeing a multi-party system? Octatonic has issued a correction as of 21:55 on Dec 13, 2015 |
# ? Dec 13, 2015 21:52 |
|
in a few weeks we'll see the first, relatively informal system of party nomination collapse; a few cycles later the national convention becomes formalized, but the methods used by the states to nominate their delegates to that convention continue to be very murky and controversial. in the early 20th century primaries are a Progressive reform, with the 1912 election seeing a dozen states bind its delegates to the winners of a 'presidential preference primary'. in the next few cycles up to 20 states used the primary, then it went back to a dozen for the 30s-'68 era. in that time there was a mix, then, of primaries more or less as we know them and backroom politics deciding a state's nomination. '68 saw some really violent and controversial scenes at the democratic national convention and that party made a concerted effort to broaden the use of the primary. the republicans followed along and primaries decisively took the upper hand over the now-more-formalized caucus system. in the 90s you started to see slapfights about whose primary would be the first and the setup of the modern system, and this cycle i think saw some procedural reforms that further strengthened the primary over the caucus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 21:56 |
|
National nominating conventions started in the 1820s. These were seen as anti-democratic in some states by 1920, so they began having primary elections that bound the delegates at the convention to the candidate who won the local primary. (There was an incident involving this in 1912, but I guess that's a spoiler.) They became a national thing after 1968.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2015 21:58 |
|
The apex of this period is 1832. Three slaveowners (maybe four, I can't find information about what William Wirt thought about slavery, but I don't think the "Anti-Masonic Party" was going to get the votes anyway.)
Corek has issued a correction as of 00:21 on Dec 14, 2015 |
# ? Dec 14, 2015 00:07 |
|
I blame this, all of this, on John Adams.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2015 00:48 |
|
GlyphGryph posted:This new voting system is dumb, I want King/Clinton >:| No poo poo. gently caress you, Twelfth Amendment, and gently caress you Thomas Jefferson for bringing it to us. King/Clinton is the best ticket this round.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2015 01:52 |
|
Jefferson is far too moderate on slavery than I like, but Pinckney is completely for it, so this choice isn't as hard as I thought it would be. I assume that he'll waffle on it, though. 1808's right around the corner, you slaver bastards! Additionally, with Pinckney being an ex-soldier, I'm sure he's salivating to massacre the natives to the west. These people were here before us, and it behooves us to work with them together, but the expansion westward could be a chance to flatten out society, if we don't let the lucky become the new aristocracy. Plus it's loving beautiful out here! gently caress Europe! This is the poo poo! I foresee a future where my ancestors don't end up having to vote for some lousy Democrat just because the other option is so bad. We are perhaps working towards a more perfect nation.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2015 02:30 |
|
Voted Pinckney/King. Gonna hope Pinckney dies and we get president King.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2015 02:32 |
|
practically none of these folks would've expended significant political capital to help black people, even the anti-slavery ones, i don't think. even the radical republicans during and after the civil war were pretty ambivalent and barely propped up reconstruction for a decade before abandoning blacks to their fate, and that was the absolute high-water mark of pro-black politics in the usa before the 1960s and all of these candidates are in effect pro-genocide when it comes to native americans, as they wouldn't have called them the conversation wasn't entirely one-sided, there were some quakers and poo poo, but nobody got their names into the presidential discussion without kowtowing to the preoccupations of the great majority at the time so we would be even more disappointed in these candidates with respect to our invented motivations for them than we are in the politicians we vote for in real life
|
# ? Dec 14, 2015 02:44 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:56 |
|
Rufus King seems to be have been born in Massachusetts, so it seems as though the Federalist Party will be getting my vote once again.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2015 05:00 |