Challenge: Alaskan Independence Party Becomes Dominant

With a POD after the 1990 gubernatorial election in which the AKIP candidate Walter Hickel was elected governor, have the AKIP become the dominant party in the state. It must still have advocating Alaskan secession as one of the main issues on its platform.
 
It would be fascinating to see how the modern United States deals with a popular, democratic seccessionist movement. After all didn't the ACW set a precedent that denied states the right to leave the Union?

No knowledgable enough but a fun idea that could become a major headache in the US doesn't handle it well. Might be harder to represent international democracy and freedom when you're "suppressing" such movements in your own backyard.
 
This is very interesting. Not only because of what Jape said, but also because while most of the major secessionist parties in the West are at the centre-left of the political spectrum (Bloc Quebecois, SNP, Plaid Cymru; the only one not left-wing that comes to my mind is the Basque PNV, which is Christian democrat), the AIP is, if Wiki is right, a very Tea Party-esque organization.

Very interesting. Since my knowledge of American politics (let alone Alaskan politics) is limited, let me ask a couple of questions in this scenario. Would it be possible to see an equally secessionist, but more to the left party (maybe an offshoot of the Alaska Democratic Party) appear? Would the sucess of the AIP lead to similar parties appear in other parts of the U.S.?
 

Deleted member 9338

This is very interesting. Not only because of what Jape said, but also because while most of the major secessionist parties in the West are at the centre-left of the political spectrum (Bloc Quebecois, SNP, Plaid Cymru; the only one not left-wing that comes to my mind is the Basque PNV, which is Christian democrat), the AIP is, if Wiki is right, a very Tea Party-esque organization.

Very interesting. Since my knowledge of American politics (let alone Alaskan politics) is limited, let me ask a couple of questions in this scenario. Would it be possible to see an equally secessionist, but more to the left party (maybe an offshoot of the Alaska Democratic Party) appear? Would the sucess of the AIP lead to similar parties appear in other parts of the U.S.?

First off I am an American with experience with politics. I always thought of the AIP as a way for people to blow off steam.

Alaska would be foolish to leave the US as more money flows into the state than out of it. It is also by and large an underdeveloped colony.

With that said, an Alaska under the AIP would be interesting. It could also energize a Nativist Movement.

Also what happens to the military assets in the state? Does the lower 48 ask Canada for access to move north?
 
Also what happens to the military assets in the state? Does the lower 48 ask Canada for access to move north?

If an eventual secession happens in a democratic and peaceful way (which I think is the only plausible scenario) I don't think it would be necessary for the US to get back their military assets by force.
 
First off I am an American with experience with politics. I always thought of the AIP as a way for people to blow off steam.

Alaska would be foolish to leave the US as more money flows into the state than out of it. It is also by and large an underdeveloped colony.

With that said, an Alaska under the AIP would be interesting. It could also energize a Nativist Movement.

Also what happens to the military assets in the state? Does the lower 48 ask Canada for access to move north?

Doesn;t Alsaka have lots of oil,and precious metals?
And a low population?
Alaska could become the Kuweit of the North if it ever became independent.
 
The AIP is a joke. Hickel left the party shortly after he won. This is ASB without a change in ideology.
 
I don't think this is difficult at all, with say a left-wing federal government forcing Alaska to sell it's oil at a way-below-market price to the lower-48 in the midst of an oil crisis. If Canada at the same time takes the opposite track - selling its oil at the high world price and reaping the rewards - the alternative would be very clear for Alaskans.
 
I don't think this is difficult at all, with say a left-wing federal government forcing Alaska to sell it's oil at a way-below-market price to the lower-48 in the midst of an oil crisis. If Canada at the same time takes the opposite track - selling its oil at the high world price and reaping the rewards - the alternative would be very clear for Alaskans.
Alaskans are prouder to be American than Albertans are proud to be Canadian. The only state I could see seceding would be Hawaii if things got AWOLAWOT racist bad.
 
Alaskans are prouder to be American than Albertans are proud to be Canadian. The only state I could see seceding would be Hawaii if things got AWOLAWOT racist bad.

So you're suggesting if the US government responded to a dramatic run-up in resource prices by setting low internal prices there wouldn't be pushback in Alaska? There's basically no countervailing political force in the US at the federal level if this were to happen, given how dramatically resource-consuming regions outnumber producer regions. Are Alaskans such pround patriots that they'd go along with a 'socialist' federal government stealing their bounty for the benefit of people living thousands of miles away?

The same would apply to many low-population Western states also.
 
This is very interesting. Not only because of what Jape said, but also because while most of the major secessionist parties in the West are at the centre-left of the political spectrum (Bloc Quebecois, SNP, Plaid Cymru; the only one not left-wing that comes to my mind is the Basque PNV, which is Christian democrat), the AIP is, if Wiki is right, a very Tea Party-esque organization.
There's also the Southern Party (favoring the CSA's return- like the AIP, they endorse the Constitution Party in the Presidential arena) and the Lega Nord in Italy (oddly, they are in Berlusconi's government.)
 
Top