RagnarokAngel posted:Although I kind of get it the idea of giving the VP to the runner up is so ridiculous I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did. It's really amazing how revolutionary some of their ideas and applications were, and how effective ideas like the Supreme Court turned out to be, but the whole "what if the runner up is from a different faction" thing never seemed to cross their minds.
|
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 09:38 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 06:31 |
|
Without Jefferson we don't get the Louisiana Purchase and we probably get a continuation of the Alien and Sedition Acts (aka the PATRIOT Act before it was cool). Jefferson in '96.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 16:00 |
|
JosefStalinator posted:It's really amazing how revolutionary some of their ideas and applications were, and how effective ideas like the Supreme Court turned out to be, but the whole "what if the runner up is from a different faction" thing never seemed to cross their minds. I got the impression it was specifically to try and avoid the formation of political parties (encouraging multiple different people from each "party" to run) while also empowering the largest group of "losers" instead of making them feel like they have no say in things at all, like a consolation prize. Also I think the VP was supposed to be more involved in Congress and policy? So it might have been yet another "checks and balances" type proposal where the runner up being a different "faction" might even have been intentional on the parts of those who did think of it. It's not really a terrible idea in concept, but the execution is lacking and a good execution might not have been possible. Alter Ego posted:Without Jefferson we don't get the Louisiana Purchase and we probably get a continuation of the Alien and Sedition Acts (aka the PATRIOT Act before it was cool). Jefferson in '96. Actually wouldn't anyone else have just jumped all over it without all the wishy-washiness?
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 19:33 |
|
like pretty much everything else in the american constitution it was a weird compromise between the large and populous states and the small and lovely ones
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 19:37 |
|
I'm surprised the Founders didn't go whole hog with their Roman Republic love and have two presidents with authority alternating between every day.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 19:40 |
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I'm surprised the Founders didn't go whole hog with their Roman Republic love and have two presidents with authority alternating between every day. No, let's not half-rear end this, let's dial things up to 11. Every person who wins a state at all becomes president, but their power is directly related to the number of states they won.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 19:43 |
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I'm surprised the Founders didn't go whole hog with their Roman Republic love and have two presidents with authority alternating between every day. A co-consul system was considered early in debates at the Constitutional Convention. John Rutledge thought that a multiple executive system would cause a diffusion of responsibility and lead to easily to inter-executive rivalries. These arguments were opposed by Gerry and Randolph, who thought that the Presidency contained within it "the feotus of monarchy." As the only role of the Executive was to fulfill the will of the legislature, they argued that it was better for the position to be divided among several people instead of one person potentially usurping power from the other branches. You can probably guess which argument won the day. GlyphGryph posted:I got the impression it was specifically to try and avoid the formation of political parties (encouraging multiple different people from each "party" to run) while also empowering the largest group of "losers" instead of making them feel like they have no say in things at all, like a consolation prize. Also I think the VP was supposed to be more involved in Congress and policy? So it might have been yet another "checks and balances" type proposal where the runner up being a different "faction" might even have been intentional on the parts of those who did think of it. The Vice President was intended to act as a spokesperson for the President in the Senate and advocate on behalf of his policies. During the Washington Administration, John Adams actively engaged with the representatives and was able to steer policy using his rhetoric and his authority over procedural matters. Of course, Washington doesn't seem to have encouraged these demonstrations of loyalty and kept Adams out of the policymaking sphere. As such, Adams was threatened with censure halfway through Washington's term. Then, Adams was replaced by Jefferson who had no interest in advancing his rival's policies. The Vice Presidency never recovered from its early marginalization. I haven't seen anyone state this outright, but based on Madison's notes, the Vice Presidency looks like an attempt to recreate the Prime Minister position within the U.S. Congress. The idea wasn't fully thought through and breaks down entirely with the "runner-up" system, but it isn't hard to imagine why it got into the Constitution's final draft. You want someone who can speak for the President without making the President a member of the Legislature and further expanding his authority. QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 20:46 on Nov 30, 2015 |
# ? Nov 30, 2015 20:15 |
|
Voted for the funk and booze ticket.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 22:08 |
|
foobardog posted:Don't act all smug about the poo poo show in France, if we had supported them, perhaps the revolution would not have been perverted. We still need to support the moderates there over England. I bet the Crown had some meddling in it. We have yet to see democracy truly practiced in any country, even our own. I propose a new law: All participants in a duel must down a tankard of ale beforehand, and you only get one shot. If both parties miss, clearly God didn't want either of you yet, so just laugh it off and go have some more beer!
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 22:12 |
|
Moktaro posted:I propose a new law: All participants in a duel must down a tankard of ale beforehand, and you only get one shot. If both parties miss, clearly God didn't want either of you yet, so just laugh it off and go have some more beer! My understanding is that this was normally the deal, and why they tended to use incredibly inaccurate pistols, or often just fire into the air. If they both missed, honor was met, and they went off on their way. There's some question whether Hamilton did this with Burr, while Burr didn't give any fucks and just shot at Hamilton. In a famous duel, Andrew Jackson was shot by the other guy, missed his first shot, and in a breach of etiquette, reloaded and hit and killed with his second shot. Andrew Jackson was a stone-cold killer, and that's not hyperbole. e: And because I can't stop talking about how insane Andrew Jackson is, his potential assassin had to be saved from Jackson when his shots didn't kill, and Jackson began wailing on him with his cane. foobardog has issued a correction as of 22:34 on Nov 30, 2015 |
# ? Nov 30, 2015 22:31 |
|
When it comes time for the Jacksonian revolution, the call to action will be "My President can beat-up your Kings."
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 23:12 |
|
Alter Ego posted:Without Jefferson we don't get the Louisiana Purchase and we probably get a continuation of the Alien and Sedition Acts (aka the PATRIOT Act before it was cool). Jefferson in '96. Related candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Ellsworth#Legacy quote:It is entirely a matter of speculation, but Ellsworth's conciliatory negotiations with Napoleon might have contributed to Napoleon's sudden choice three years later to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States for $15 million.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2015 23:20 |
Going with Burr/Sadams, my uninformed but anti-slavery choices have turned out well so far
|
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 04:32 |
|
Question: in this timeline did Adams and Jay abolish free speech in their first term because people said mean things about them?
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 04:43 |
I'm the most confused voter of 1796, President A. Burr and Vice President J. Adams here we go. In other news, link to current election, in OP, is out of date.
|
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 04:46 |
|
Voted John/John, we need to put the South in its place and drag it into a free and industrialized society asap. i have no idea what i'm doing
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 04:58 |
|
enjoy your two terms mr adams. vive l'ouverture
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 05:08 |
|
Sharkie posted:Voted John/John, we need to put the South in its place and drag it into a free and industrialized society asap. you're following my pre-reconstruction flowchart: first vote abolition, then vote federalism, then vote gently caress the south federalism is usually overlapping with gently caress the south but gotta make sure
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 05:18 |
|
Going with the anti-slavery theme going on here and voting for John Adams/Burr. Might as well try and rub out the issue before it gets way out of hand. I'm looking forward to the 1980 and 1984 elections myself, just to see how many posters here will vote for Carter and Mondale just to spite Reagan.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 06:57 |
|
Logic Probed posted:Going with the anti-slavery theme going on here and voting for John Adams/Burr. Might as well try and rub out the issue before it gets way out of hand. poo poo, I might vote for Reagan just to spite goons.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 11:05 |
|
Joementum posted:Question: in this timeline did Adams and Jay abolish free speech in their first term because people said mean things about them? I like to imagine John Adams adding increasingly pompous and ridiculous titles to his name as a coping mechanism against the mean Jeffersonian press. ((Then probably jailing a bunch of printers because they depicted him as a short, fat, little man.))
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 12:27 |
|
Logic Probed posted:I'm looking forward to the 1980 and 1984 elections myself, just to see how many posters here will vote for Carter and Mondale just to spite Reagan. I’m voting for Carter because he was a legit great president.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 20:48 |
|
While a unified timeline is pretty clearly a lost cause, I'd love to get tidbits from history goons about what they think would be the result of any given goon election, like how not electing Washington would probably have just made the union collapse completely, or what getting colonial-era Frank Underwood (Aaron Burr) elected might have been like.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 21:13 |
|
Platystemon posted:I’m voting for Carter because he was a legit great president. Pretty sure it's a given that either Anderson or Carter will be elected in 1980, thus eliminating Reagan from the timeline
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 22:09 |
|
The Lord of Hats posted:While a unified timeline is pretty clearly a lost cause, I'd love to get tidbits from history goons about what they think would be the result of any given goon election, like how not electing Washington would probably have just made the union collapse completely, or what getting colonial-era Frank Underwood (Aaron Burr) elected might have been like. But yeah, I do think a case could be made that all the elections we are voting on can't happen, because failing to elect G-Wash would splinter the union. I will never stop being disappointed in all of you for not giving us two straight Washington/Jay adminiatrations.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 22:30 |
|
Alter Ego posted:Pretty sure it's a given that either Anderson or Carter will be elected in 1980, thus eliminating Reagan from the timeline imagine four single-term presidents on the edge of a cliff
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 22:38 |
|
cams posted:I will never stop being disappointed in all of you for not giving us two straight Washington/Jay adminiatrations. Jay wasn’t even an option in the election of 1792.
|
# ? Dec 1, 2015 23:01 |
|
I just want to thank this thread for introducing me to Hamilton, which is just absolutely stunning.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 11:37 |
Joementum posted:Question: in this timeline did Adams and Jay abolish free speech in their first term because people said mean things about them? Depends Joementum, how much do you really want to write alternate history fanfiction about the first President of the United States, John Adams?
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 12:07 |
|
what are the candidates' views on gun control
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 23:17 |
|
Mitt Romney posted:Related candidate: Yeah, I'm going Jay/Ellsworth for maximum (zombie-)Hamilton puppetmastery.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:14 |
|
We all know that Eugene Debs is literally going to get elected to like 5 consecutive terms; if we tried to construct the Goon President Timeline it'd be the most bizarre alternate history ever. Glad we're sticking with established history despite election results.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 17:55 |
I think sticking with historical elections only makes sense cause it would quickly diverge and we wouldn't even get to vote for Bryan, Longs, and Debs. But it would be cool if someone came up with a timeline that did include all our chosen presidents after the fact or something.
|
|
# ? Dec 6, 2015 02:39 |
|
Thank you all for voting. In a nail-biter of an election, His Elective Majesty, Our Lord-Protector, John Adams, President of the United States, Protector of Their Liberties, Defender of the Faithful, and Father of the Nation, has been re-elected to a third term. Returning from a brief Governorship in New York is John Jay. Both men have announced their commitment to a strong national government, a strong national defense, and stamping a boot on the Democratic-Republican face, forever. Despite performing even worse than his running mate, Jefferson has vowed to return at the next election. We will see how successful he is. RESULTS BREAKDOWN Most popular candidates: 1. John Adams – 40 votes (44.4%) 2. John Jay – 38 votes (42.2%) 3. Samuel Adams – 31 votes (34.4%) 4. Aaron Burr – 30 votes (33.3%) 5. Oliver Ellsworth - 11 votes (12.2%) 6. Thomas Jefferson – 10 votes (11.1%) 7. George Clinton – 7 votes (7.8%) 8. Thomas Pickney – 7 votes (7.8%) 9. George Washington – 6 votes (6.7%) 10. James Iredell – 0 votes (0.0%) 11. John Henry – 0 votes (0.0%) 12. Samuel Johnston – 0 votes (0.0%) Most popular tickets: 1. John Adams / John Jay – 18 votes 2. Aaron Burr / Samuel Adams – 12 votes 3. Aaron Burr / John Jay – 7 votes 4. John Adams / Samuel Adams – 6 votes 5. John Adams / Aaron Burr – 6 votes Most popular parties: 1. Federalist Party – 96 votes (53.3%) 2. Democratic-Republican Party – 78 votes (43.3%) 3. Independent – 6 votes (3.3%)
|
# ? Dec 6, 2015 14:47 |
|
ELECTION OF 1800 Click here to vote in the Election of 1800! Background: Obligatory Song Newspapers are being shuttered by the federal government. Merchants fear mob violence on the streets of New York and Boston. American ships are being seized indiscriminately by the French. There are rumors that both France and England will soon invade, and that Adams has been calling up on every former Revolutionary War veteran to defend the nation if the time comes. They say that even George Washington was prepared to come out of retirement when he died. States are saying that they will call upon their militias to enforce the election results they want. This is the situation in 1800. When Adams became president in 1796, war between England and France had already been causing difficulties within the new republic. America’s refusal to call a side has led France, led by the Directory, to suspend commercial relations and begin attacking American ships. Though many have called for full-scale war, especially after French officials demanded huge bribes before they would even consider talking to American diplomats, Adams has resisted these calls. His attempts to instead negotiate with the French and build a large standing army, have alienated Federalists and Democratic-Republicans alike. Matters have been worsened by growing political tensions domestically. With the French openly endorsing Democratic-Republicans and several within the party calling for a French-style revolution, Adams has passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to maintain public order. Intended to quell uprest brought about by foreign powers, the Acts extend the Naturalization process, allow the President to deport any foreigner, and punish anyone who publishes “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against a government official. Given Democratic-Republican control over much of the press, Jefferson has insinuated that the Acts are a veiled attempt at establishing a Federalist dictatorship. He has called upon the states to end this tyranny and, in the South, various states have endorsed the concept of nullification, the idea that states can invalidate federal laws. Adams is not sure who is responsible for this idea, but has vowed to prosecute them when he finds out. Complicating matters even further is Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps outraged by Adams’s association with Burr and refusal to toe the party line, Hamilton has started a one-man crusade to unseat the president. Calling him a man with “great and intrinsic defects in character which unfit him for the office of chief magistrate,” Hamilton has turned the entire Federalist Party apparatus against Adams in an attempt to elect his unmemorable running mate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. This battle has largely annihilated Adams’s reputation within his own party. Many believe that Adams will inevitably be unseated. The only question is whether it is in a Federalist coup or a Democratic-Republican revolution. The press for their part have been thrilled by the opportunity to slander everyone involved. John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Aaron Burr
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
John Jay
|
# ? Dec 6, 2015 14:49 |
|
I’m not saying that John “Alien & Sedition” Adams is a great guy, but I’m sure not voting for Aaron “had such a bitchfit over not getting the presidency that he went to the western frontier, made friends with a Spanish spy, and tried to get the west to secede from the union” Burr or Thomas “having children with his property” Jefferson Pinckney’s opinions are bad. He can’t even choose a good portrait painter. He has Lindsey Graham’s background and ¡Jeb!’s backbone. Platystemon has issued a correction as of 15:26 on Dec 6, 2015 |
# ? Dec 6, 2015 15:09 |
|
Before you vote, you may wish to read the local newspaper to find their views on the candidates. Assuming you are literate, here is what you would read:Bache & Co. posted:The President is an old, querulous, bald, crippled and toothless. quote:Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father raised on hoe cakes quote:John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. Martha Washington posted:Jefferson is one of the most detestable among mankind The Philadelphia Aurora posted:[b]Things As They Have Been (under Adams) Portland Gazette posted:Unrestrained by law, or the fear of punishment, [Jefferson will allow] every deadly passion to have its full scope, private quarrels will be revenged, and public feuds and rivalships will call forth the bitterest hate and vengance. Neighbors will become the enemies of neighbors, brothers of brothers, fathers of their sons, and sons of their fathers. Murder, robbery, rap, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the crisis of distress, the soil soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes. Where is the heart which can contemplate such a scene without shivering with horror! QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 15:24 on Dec 6, 2015 |
# ? Dec 6, 2015 15:15 |
|
QuoProQuid posted:
If any of you ever visit Hilton Head, SC you should check out Pinckney Island: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinckney_Island_National_Wildlife_Refuge
|
# ? Dec 6, 2015 15:23 |
|
When does Adams son run for Presidency? Seriously, John is still the only guy who should have the job. America was meant to be a dictatorship
|
# ? Dec 6, 2015 15:47 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 06:31 |
|
Thump! posted:When does Adams son run for Presidency? Seriously, John is still the only guy who should have the job. America was meant to be a dictatorship John Quincy Adams will get a single electoral vote in the Election of 1820, which unfortunately puts him just below the criteria to be included as a candidate in that election. He'll run officially in 1824 and 1828.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2015 15:51 |