I'm curious if any of the Other parties were the "primary" party for any of the House candidates if you've decided things to that level of detail.
The Ruins of an American Party System, Part Three: Revolution
- Thread starter Emperor Julian
- Start date
This just goes to show that the fusion ballot system is insane and needs to be repealed... unfortunately, that would have to go through Congress to happen, and with such a bizarre current setup, I don't see that happening without a crisis of some kind.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, there are dozens and dozens of parties cross-endorsing all over the place, those candidates marked "other" are people who were not nominated by any of the major parties.
I actually like the fusion ballot system. It allows for truly independent legislators able to debate and assess each piece of legislation on its own merits without fear of having to answer to a party machine first and foremost. It means that the character and conduct of a candidate is more important than which party they run under. It's basically a system which allows for de facto non-partisan elections by turning parties, and their nominations, into loose signposts for general political leanings, often closely tied to the local politics of the contested seat, instead of an entrenched institution.
I think it's only insane if you're looking at it from an OTL mindset. There's three main things I can see coming out of a fusion system as it settles.
First, a greater concentration of party organization at the state level. As the partisan makeup and cross-endorsement of candidates in each state is going to vary so widely, the state level organization is going to matter much more. I expect to see a lot more of what is currently going on with Minnesota in other parties and across states. You'll probably have intraparty factions shifting each cycle as which candidates are in which races change.
Second, a much greater investigation and media coverage of each candidate's voting record and policy positions instead of merely their party affiliation. While which parties nominate each candidate can give the voter a general idea, the actual issue positions are going to matter more on a deeper level.
Third, there will probably be much different ballot access laws to fit with a broader fusion system. I expect the state requirements for forming a party to be much stricter, while perhaps laws are made that say if a candidate registers to run as an independent, they cannot be listed on the ballot by any party even if they win that party's nomination.
Last, I could also see a lot more emphasis being made on what party the candidate themselves is a registered member of. I could see that ending up being how a candidate's "official" affiliation is determined, and losing your "official" nomination, while not a reelection death knell, would still be a big warning sign. Also, a candidate switching parties around primary season would be a big speculative sign of shifting support.
Following up on this, @Emperor Julian, what does the House look like, if you count by party registration?
Okay, I'll admit that @Alexander the Average and @wilcoxchar both have points. I'm just used to the idea of a candidate being nominated by their party and maybe cross-endorsed by like-minded but different other parties; this whole setup of wildly different parties somehow supporting the same candidate just doesn't make much sense to me.
About 150 Republicans, 100 Progressives, 30 Populists, 20 Americans, 20 Socialists, 18 Commonwealthers, and then the remaining 120 have no affiliation or a scattering of minor parties as their official registration.
Perhaps a bit late and a bit of a crap joke!
None, the civil service is supposed to be politically neutral.
Attachments
I'd like to think I'd be fairly politically engaged, especially with my political leanings being significantly less fringe. I'd like to be involved with an SPA or PFL local (or maybe a smaller leftist group, if I felt it was a better fit and they were willing to use ballot fusion strategically) and get political education through them. So not really too different from how I do shit now for local politics, but without the internet.
More speculation for '48: if nobody can unite the center, then I could see the layout of major tickets being something like:
- Taylor, Wallace, or Benson on the PFL ticket, maybe with SPA support (more likely for the first two than for Benson, with his hard pro-Soviet line)
- A PC ticket supported by ModProg defectors. I ship Johnson and Kelly for this, because I enjoy the though of LBJ as a young ambitious upstart supported by a seasoned political operator from the Northeast.
- Taft and Slatonstall, ofc
- Styles or some other American bastard, probably with a right-wing GOP type as a running mate to reach out to anti-Taft Republicans
- A Commonwealth ticket with two Southerners and no realistic shot at making the runoff
Last edited:
That sounds pretty likely to me, if only because I can't see anyone managing to unite enough of the center factions at this point.
So a majority on the right, center, or Southern African-Americans. Nice
You mean we may see a 2nd Constitutional Convention? Wow, things have gotten desperate.
So this is a question for a while back, but what positions did William Bullitt hold before being Secretary of State? IOTL, his diplomatic career went on hiatus when he resigned from the Wilson administration in 1919, and I can't imagine him serving under any of the Republicans. Did he do something else to attract notability?
He became an advocate of recognizing the USSR and establishing diplomatic relations which made a lot of right wingers dislike him which made Floyd Olson like him.
Hell of a leap from there to Secretary of State. I might have appointed him ambassador to the USSR first, then groomed him to replace some ModProg concession after midterms. But if Olson prioritized pissing off the Right over resume strength, I can respect that.
I like how Floyd Olson was enough of a troll to- in the middle of the greatest crisis since the Civil War- pick someone for his cabinet in part on the basis of how much he would piss off the right.
Probably not. Updates tend to come in bursts, and there have been waits like this before.
No, I just got busy and I hate making regular info boxes like the Senate one will be.