Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

1824 Election

Recommended Posts

@jvikings1

I'm reading JQ Adams's diary and taking notes on his comments on the 1824 election. I can share them with you when I'm done. They might help with a future update to your 1824 scenario. I think it would also allow you to created different start dates for the election as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

@jvikings1

I'm reading JQ Adams's diary and taking notes on his comments on the 1824 election. I can share them with you when I'm done. They might help with a future update to your 1824 scenario. I think it would also allow you to created different start dates for the election as well. 

@vcczar, in your opinion, in a very broad, nebulous prognostication, how do you think things might have differed in U.S. politics, in the short or long term, if John Quincy Adams had won re-election in 1828, defeating Andrew Jackson again, and with an undisputed victory, not one soiled by a "corrupt bargain," like his original election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

@vcczar, in your opinion, in a very broad, nebulous prognostication, how do you think things might have differed in U.S. politics, in the short or long term, if John Quincy Adams had won re-election in 1828, defeating Andrew Jackson again, and with an undisputed victory, not one soiled by a "corrupt bargain," like his original election?

I think it would have built a stronger, more unified Whig Party, and somewhat diluted the Democratic Party. I think Adams would have actually adopted a lot of the Democratic platform--expanded suffrage, for instance. I think the country would have drifted in a more European direction in that internal improvement, social improvements, and so on would have been government subsidized. I think we have industrialized much swifter. I think Adams and Obama are similar in that both presidents had tremendous vision but were stymied by a Congress that couldn't see much beyond the present. Obama was also hampered by going into the presidency with minimal experience, so he sort of wasted the two years he had with a friendly Congress. I think Obama in 2012 or 2016, after having been in the Senate for a full term, would have made an even better president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vcczar said:

@jvikings1

I'm reading JQ Adams's diary and taking notes on his comments on the 1824 election. I can share them with you when I'm done. They might help with a future update to your 1824 scenario. I think it would also allow you to created different start dates for the election as well. 

I'd be interested in that.  However, I won't have very much time until at least Christmas break as I'm taking mostly more difficult classes this semester which have taken up more of my time than previous semesters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I wish there was a Coalition mechanic in PI, like Clay supporting J Q Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ido said:

To be fair I wish there was a Coalition mechanic in PI, like Clay supporting J Q Adams

That doesn't work so well in PI, for, in an election for a chief executive directly (be it a U.S., or other nation's President, a Governor or other directly-elected head of another first-tier subnational administrative unit or autonomous and remote, but dependent polity, or the Mayor of a city - it doesn't really matter at all, in this case), it becomes difficult because only one person is being elected, not members of a whole legislative body. Also, things like joint tickets and (very commonly seen in emerging democracies to challenge powerful, sitting long-term incumbent Presidents) electoral coalitions and fronts uniting under one candidate, usually have formed and chosen their candidate by the time the election formally starts, and thus, by PI mechanics, would be treated in any workable way as  single parties. Of course, the cross-nominations that happened several times in the 19th and VERY early 20th Centuries (Whig Party nominating an American/Know-Nothing Candidate in 1856, Democratic Party nominating a Liberal Republican in 1872, and the Democratic Party effectively nominating a Populist candidate in 1896 and 1900, for example), was a set of circumstances I brought up to @admin_270, but at the time, he seemed dismissive of the precedent and any need to have a mechanic in the game to allow it, and seemed uninterested in considering the idea, last he spoke on it, for some reason. The National Union Party of 1864 was, for all purposes, the same kind of joint ticket formed before the election that could be treated as a single party in game, formed before the election, of the type that I'd mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, but i just thought that it could be good if nobody reached a majority, then one candidate could give his Electoral Votes to another candidate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ido said:

ok, but i just thought that it could be good if nobody reached a majority, then one candidate could give his Electoral Votes to another candidate

In truth, though, Clay didn't GIVE his EV's to Adams - that's not permitted under the rules of the (flawed, broken, paternalistic, elitist) EC. He just used his influence as House Speaker to allow the Constitutionally-demanded House vote for the President if no one wins an outright EC majority to go to electing Adams, which is entirely different, and was an early example of the bad idea the EC has always been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok ok Patine, i know its not good, i just said that it could be good if we could simulate how J Q Adams won instead of Clay winning every time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ido said:

ok ok Patine, i know its not good, i just said that it could be good if we could simulate how J Q Adams won instead of Clay winning every time

Does Clay win every time? I have to admit, the several times I've played @jvikings1's 1824 U.S. Presidential Election scenario (and my own creation for that election back for P4E2008), I've always played Clay - and thus never against an AI Clay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it goes like that, there is a tie, nobody wins a majority, Clay controls Congress thus he becomes the winner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 2:16 AM, Ido said:

it goes like that, there is a tie, nobody wins a majority, Clay controls Congress thus he becomes the winner

With Clay being speaker, it is set to reflect the power he would hold in that position.  So, if Clay finishes in the top 3, then he'll usually win.  But, if he's 4 (or lower if hypothetical candidates are on), then it'll be up to the system.  However, I wish there was a way that the "corrupt bargain" could be replicated.

@admin_270, is there anyway that in the case of candidates falling short of an electoral majority in the EC that a negotiation system could be added where candidates could use the states that align with them to influence the vote in the House?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly what I've asked for, but Patine had to criticize the EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ido said:

exactly what I've asked for, but Patine had to criticize the EC

Well, it deserves sharp criticism. It's one of the biggest reasons U.S. politics is so fucked, and why the political Duopoly has such a leverage to hold unchallengeable, entrenched power, and is considered so essential and indispenceable - because it's near impossible to elect a President in the EC in a real multi-party system, and thus the voters get cheated either way as long as the EC exists - like in the cynical Mexican political doctrine they call 'Herod's Law' down there, which translates as, "you're either screwed or your fucked."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it doesn't deserve criticism, I just said that you got your point across, you don't need to criticize it wherever its mentioned, this topic here is about the 1824 scenario for President Infinity, not a debate about the virtues of the EC, if you want to debate it then you can set up a debate post about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×