**matt_mcl ** actually has run for the NDP, IIRC.
Can I play? Just for the devilry (heh) of it I’d like to run as the candidate for the Satanic States of America party basing its politics on the teachings of Satanism. (This wouldn’t ever actually happen as Satanism isn’t and couldn’t be a political movement, but this is supposed to be an intellectual exercise, not an approximation of reality.)
If you can define the teachings of Satan in political terms I guess so. (Hmm, there is a joke about Cheney or Rove in there somewhere.)
I think this might push too far onto the joke territory though and detract from the more high minded debate I was hoping for. I guess I am saying, please don’t do this just for the humor.
I did not know that. Well feel free to PM him, we still don’t have a democratic candidate yet, though I am hoping **Elendil’s Heir ** checks in as one. I guess we can have more than one in theory.
Jim
I should try to form the Pot, Spot, and Knot Party.
Our platform:
- legalize marijuana and other drugs
- increase penalties for irresponsible pet ownership
- allow legal marriages between any consenting adults
Whoever gets the nomination already has my vote…
Can you add to that Shot, Tot, and Got:
- increase penalties for violent offenses, while decreasing penalties for non-violent offenses
- implement incentives for parents to take a more active role in raising children (esp. young children), while providing assistance to parents and greater oversight of out-of-home child care providers
- less tax breaks for the wealthy; lighter tax liability for low-income earners (say, the bottom 20%).
I’m in.
Sure, I’ll take part. But I’m not really a ‘conservative’, so I’m not sure what my platform is supposed to be. Am I supposed to just represent my own views as a candidate for my own party? If so, can I change the name of it, so that people don’t confuse me with someone like Pat Robertson, who I loathe?
If so, I would pick something like the “Dynamist” party, or maybe the “Liberal Market” party or something like that.
Um, I think I’m probably just a little off the platform for the Progressive Party. I guess I can back BrainGlutton for Socialist, or whoever the Green is.
On the other hand I would accept a draft from any of the above, Communist Party USA or Monster Raving Loony.
I’d say the best way is to mimic the real campaign process. Put yourself forward as a candidate for the Republican nomination and outline your positions. Let other potential Republican nominees do the same. Then at some point the Republicans will have to chose their best candidate from among themselves and put this person forward as their party representative before the genral electorate of this board. Like their real world counterparts they’ll have to strike a balance between adherance to the party platform and electability. On this board, I’m guessing somebody from the Chafee-Pataki-Snowe part of the Republican spectrum is the party’s best hope for a victory.
You are now my president. Don’t mess it up though, I can get revolting.
Shouldn’t you have to take into consideration the concerns of the party too, though? Sure, most candidates don’t toe their party’s line perfectly, but most won’t stray too far from their party’s desires for fear of losing the support of the party. I think that should be taken into account to really push the agenda. It’s harder to compromise between personal beliefs and those of the people backing you, but you have to in order to get enough support to actually become a nominee, let alone be elected… Just my opinion, of course. This will be an interesting read either way.
I nominate me
To the first Haiku Party
Have you heard of us?
My platform is just
To think I’m really clever
(But really I’m not)
Security
Security, ah
Very important issue
Tanks for everyone
Economy
We all like money
And we never have enough
Here, take this dollar
Social Security and Medicare
I cannot speak well
About the Medicare thing
But I like free pills
Taxes
I hate our taxes
If you vote for me this year
You won’t have to pay
Gay Marriage and Privacy Rights
“If you’re gay, that cool,
Just don’t try to tongue kiss me.”
I’m a homophobe
**Abortion **
I’m not touching this
Not with a long pole
Heh, heh, I said pole
I would be willing to serve as a nominee for the Moderate Independent Party if John Mace doesn’t wish to. Or to serve as the Scientific Results and Delegation Party nominee*, which would have a bit more of a personal flavor to it.
- Our primary goals are to increase the amount of rationality that goes into policy making and de-politicising and delegating certain governing powers to specialist organisations like the FDA and EPA.
I wasn’t saying I’d do this for laughs - I just said that what I’m proposing isn’t every likely to happen (mainly because Satanic organisations are apolitical).
The party platform (as it would be mainly determined) would be:
[ul]
[li]Complete separation of church and state and legislative steps to make it clear this is intentional and meant to be permanent[/li][li]Taxation of all churches and religious organisations and removal of religious donations from the category of charitable giving[/li][li]Increased funding for police forces and military personnel to attract a better calibre of recruit[/li][li]Extend the death penalty to include major violent crimes and reduce the number of appeals that can be called for to one - death to be administered by a bullet to the back of the head[/li][li]Introduction of a civil partnership scheme (similar to the one in Britain) that is marriage in everything but name to allow any two people who wish to enter into a lasting partnership[/li][li]Cessation of uemployment welfare and hacking back as far as possible public welfare spending that is used to subsidised laziness, stupidity and lack of responsibility[/li][/ul]
I’m quite happy to debate these principles as seriously as you like and I’m no stranger to politics, although if you think it would detract from the exercise and would rather I didn’t then happy to bow out (although if so I’d question what the marijuanna party is doing here).
Oops, sorry, I thought you were an old school small government, fiscal conservative, don’t much like Bush for his spending.
Anyway, please declare your party and I hope your will to argue for a platform.
Later today, I will make a short list of the current candidates and their parties.
Little Nemo: I was hoping to not have it be like our current primaries. The radical changes displayed by Rudy and Mitt are depressing. Pandering is what a mock election would hopefully not have.
Excellent, lets pencil you into this new slot. I was actually hoping for a Science base party, but I did not think I should suggest it.
Illuminatiprimus: I would be happy for you to debate the merits of the policies you enumerated. What will be the official party name?
Jim
Whoa, wait a minute. Are we running for president or dictator? I mean, I can change my platform to “end world hunger” and “bring peace throughout the land” if I can legislate and everything.
Isn’t part of defending a policy, also explaining how you would be able to get it done and where needed, how to pay for it?
The questioners and other candidates would be responsible for challenging opponents, much like you just did.
Jim
Ok, as I understand it, the general Independence Party of America platform is basically that you need more than two parties. Which you do. I mean, not that we really have more than a two-party system here in practical terms, but it’s still a useful thing. For one thing, it means there’s less chance you have to hold your nose and vote, because the other guy is worse. And you can purposefully put your vote for someone else to show a lack of support without giving it to the other guy.
Also, less partisanship, which is a good thing. If an idea comes up, it should be addressed on it’s merits, not whether the person in question has an (R) or a (D) next to their name. Anyway, here’s the general platform using Liberal’s template.
Security
I think the current security policy of the U.S. suffers from too much cure and not enough prevention. Things like Guantanamo Bay are like treating a broken arm by breaking it again so it points the right way. It’s not enough to send troops anywhere - you also have to try and eliminate the reasons for needing to send those troops. Practicing torture, keeping suspects outside of the country, and the considerable leeway that essentially mercenary contractors are allowed in Iraq are shortsighted and will only help to prolong animosity. As for internal security; life should mean life, not however many years and then parole.
Economy
I think the economy is best stimulated by letting people do what they want to do. I’m pretty much in agreement with the Libertarian candidate that stronger protections against fraud, at whatever level, are needed, and i’d add to that that sentencing limits for white collar crime should be increased.
Social Security and Medicare
You’ve fucked yourselves over, and no-one’s willing to admit to it because the bearer of bad news will be assumed to be the cause of the bad news, even if it’s the first day in office (same here really, so hooray for finance). However, while i’m not certain that it can be fixed, I think that wide-ranging changes without a strong economy to back it up wouldn’t be prudent. If the surplus can be got back, some of the debt bought back, then we can start thinking about SS. I am, however, in favour of universal health care, and while again this would depend on the economy improving to help pay for it and offset any risk, I would want to strongly move forward with plans for it until then.
Taxes
I’m in favour of the FairTax initiative, though I would want it brought in over a sliding period rather than immediately, and I would prefer that the FCA be based at least partially by state and even location depending on disparity. Also, I would charge a
Gay Marriage and Privacy Rights
Once again i’m in agreement with Liberal. The government should get out of the marriage business, and really I don’t think it’ll be missed. I would be very willing to attempt to pass an amendment guaranteeing the right to civil union-style contracts for any combination of consenting adults (presuming that it does not break the law in some other way). The issue of marriage as a religious, organisational, family affair, should be handled by those religions, organisationa, and families. Privacy-wise, what you do with other consenting adults, as long as you break no laws, is none of my business. And that includes marijuana, which would be legalised, though i’d want some more studies done to get an equivalent to the breathalyser for car tests.
Abortion
Safe, legal, rare. I’m pro-choice, but I recognise that abortion is never a good option to take. I would be in favour of the legalisation of any any new, safe developments in birth control products, and in particular spending money to research male contraceptive pills would be a top priority in this area. And a yes to stem cell research, though not a carte blanche.
Iraq and the Middle East
I believe that the Iraq war is a mess, but it’s a mess we’re in, and it is a mess we are obligated, no matter how hard, to try and help fix. This doesn’t mean, however, necessarily sending more troops in. I’d be interested to see how the surge develops, and if results look promising then i’m afraid we’d be staying in there for a good time yet. If not, then new plans need to be made, and frankly I believe the best approach would be to attempt to distance ourselves from the current administration as much as possible. I have no doubt that no matter what happens, there will be many in the Middle East that hate us, but that’s life. Hate translated into action, however, will be dealt with swiftly. I’m incredibly not above assassination, hint hint, wink wink.
Gun Control
Despite where i’m from, i’m not for getting rid of all guns over there. On the contrary, despite tightening up background search legislation, i’m willing to look at ideas on both sides for allowing or disallowing certain weapons. I don’t like the 2nd Amendment; I don’t think it explicitly states that which others think it explicitly states. But my answer to that is not to ignore it or reinterpret it, but propose a new amendment, again with input on both sides, setting out exactly what may and may not be owned, and in what way. The platform of the IPoA rests on non-partisanship, and I wouldn’t be looking to promote a certain set here; merely that I would be very invested in bringing interested parties one way or the other to the table to decide on a clear law - if only so that they have something to repeal. 
“Conservative” in American parlance also usually means Christian, opposed to gay marriage, for ‘Family Values’ , for increased drug control, etc.
I’ll post my party’s platform when I get home from work tonight.