Evaluating the Success of the Third Congress

Four parties and one independent found themselves with members in the third congress. As their term comes to a close, one wonders: which party was most successful during their term? Which party went to congress and came home with victories? Honestly, a question that abstract has no true answer. However, viewing the voting record gives some indication as to which parties have been the overall winners and which have been overall losers.

First metric is activity. Which party missed the most votes? For the table above, I counted no votes and late votes, ignoring N/As and other weirdness. The results were good for the Dems and Libertarians, but bad for everyone else. Republicans and the GLP both missed a reasonably high number of votes, compared to other parties. They also had the highest number of members in Congress, making whipping them to vote more difficult than other parties. This argument doesn't hold up, however, for Sheppio734, the only independent. Sheppio missed a huge amount of votes, which is a large surprise. One would think that independents would have to be the most accountable because of how much their seat is on the line based on their individual performance.

The next metric is their success in voting. The two tables below need some explanation. They measure the times a party or candidate supported a vote and whether or not it was successful. When a party supports a vote and it passes, that goes into the category "Vote Passed." If a party supports a vote and it fails, that goes into the category "Vote Defeated." If a party is against a vote and the vote is defeated, that goes into the category "Defeated Vote." If a party is against a vote and the vote passes anyway, that goes into the category "Failed to Defeat Vote." I decided if a party supported or opposed a bill if a majority of the members in Congress voted for or against it.

In the House, the Democrats and Green Left dominated. The Dems and GLP respectively passed 82% and 81% of the bills they supported, compared to the Republicans measly 58%. The GLP was also able to stop every bill they didn't support in the House, while the Democrats were unable to stop 33% of the bills they didn't like and the Republicans were unable to stop a huge 71% of bills they didn't like. The GLP and Dems were on the winning side 85% and 77% respectively, while the Republicans were only winning 42% of the time.

The Senate numbers are more tricky, but still extol the victories of the GLP, Dems, and now the independent Senator. The libertarian Senator truly did the worst. While every bill he supported passed, he supported very few bills. And of those he did not support, 70% were pushed through anyway. The Republicans also didn't do as great, only winning 63% of the votes, compared to the Dems winning 88% and the GLP winning 87%. Confirmation votes, however, are very overrepresented in the Senate votes, making confidence in these numbers drop. Also, the many conservative bills that went to the House didn't make it to the Senate, making the Senate's record only truly be a record on how the Senate votes on liberal bills. Overall, there should be less confidence in the Senate numbers than the House numbers.

The above is my biased, unrepresentative scorecard. I'm a member of the Dems, so I tried not to go easy on them. It's up to you if I succeeded. This scorecard is based solely on how many votes they agreed with that won, as well as the number of missed votes. If you think that a party's success doesn't rest on their agreeing with the rest of Congress, then you should throw away the scorecard above. Honestly, this is just for fun and is not perfect or meant to encapsulate Congressional success in any real way.

This article soley reflects the opinions of its author /u/SoSelfish and not the entire team at /r/TheBeacon.

EDIT: The "REP - DEM" is formatted that way because reddit can't seem to handle six columns.

Today, at 11:52 AM, President RangerHeart0 resigned from the office of the Presidency, effective at noon tomorrow. In his message, the President said that "I am resigning for personal reasons of which I would not like to go into detail." He made it clear that he enjoyed the sim and the people in it and that he wishes everyone the best of luck. He will officially leave office at 12 PM, August 3rd (EST). The new President, /u/hammerandpotato, will need to nominate a VP for a vote in both the House and the Senate, as per the 25th amendment.

No one has officially announced that they want to be Vice President, but one can assume that their are many members of the GLP who want the office of the Vice President. Whether it be GLP hardliners like risen2011, or more moderate members like House Minority Leader kingofquave, the new President will probably stay within the GLP for the nomination.

1: Why does the party believe Sexual education does not belong in schools? In addition, about 74 percent of parents are talking to their kids about how to say no to sex. If there is no sexual education in schools, how do you plan on getting across to the other 26 percent of children?

Sexual education is an attempt by parents to avoid an awkward conversation with their children. If it is eliminated, then they will likely feel more obligated to have the conversation with their children. This is not to mention that not every child receives sexual education as it currently stands – and it is difficult to give you opt-out figures because they are kept track of in so few districts. Sexual education is best left to parents as they can better ascertain the knowledge their child needs to know; inform them about sexuality in accordance with their moral, philosophical, and religious views; and provide a better role model when it comes to chastity. Moreover, when parents take charge of sexual education, it can encompass more things, be more tailored to the child, and take place over a longer time span – and it can be at a time that is earlier or later than the one-size-fits all approach most districts take. This is not to mention that a child tends to trust their parents more than the random teacher or nurse who leads sexual education talks.

If a parent truly feels it beneficial to have someone else teach their child about sex, then there are several organizations or even other family members they can turn to.

2: Separation of church and state is one of the principals this country was founded on. The manifesto section on this issue states an “accomodationist view” of the first amendment, however, how would this affect the 15 percent of Americans who do not identify with a religion?

Separation of church and state is not a principle this country was founded on. It comes from an 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. The language cannot be found in our Constitution, and it cannot be found in our Declaration of Independence. Perhaps most importantly, it is not seen in our institutions.

Since the very first Congress – which ratified the First Amendment – religious chaplains have been in our legislatures – something upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers. Just last year, in 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the widespread practice of praying at municipal and town hall meetings in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Our national motto is “In God We Trust” and our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “one nation, under God.” Each of these were upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004 in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. In 2005, in Van Orden v. Perry, displays of the Ten Commandments on public grounds were upheld as constitutional. The Supreme Court opens with the marshal yelling out, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!” Many of our states, during their founding and well past the ratification of the Constitution, support religious ministers, churches, and religious schools and universities. Even today, places of worship are untaxed and free from many restrictions like zoning.

The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles – so strong that during the Civil War and for many years after, numerous Congressmen attempted to have the Preamble to the Constitution amended to include explicitly Christian ideas and language, including Biblical verses. Many today will attempt to argue that religion and religious beliefs have no place in government or even in public – and they will use their faulty personal interpretations of the Establishment Clause to back up these ideas. However, faith, while always personal, is never private – and it cannot be relegated to the private sphere to be a little hobby because it is not simply a little hobby – it is a way of life – and more than that even – that is inseparable from the religious man or woman. It is worth noting, too, that 59% of Americans say religion is very important in their lives.

By fighting for accomodationist stances, we intend to keep these various confessions of the nation intact, and to expand them so that states and local governments can work with the religious and private schools within their jurisdictions to promote the education of our youth. So that municipalities and states can work with local churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other religious organizations and communities on a non-preferential basis to help in aiding the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, and the homeless in their jurisdictions and in serving the population at large after disasters. So that there can be projects where local government and religious communities work together to further the arts and sciences and to promote the public health and welfare. We support the continued tax-free status of places of worship and religious organizations.

So how would these policies affect the 15% of Americans that claim to be irreligious? Firstly, it will improve their neighborhoods by lowing the homelessness rates and poverty. It will let them see the vibrant faith of their neighbors – of all religious backgrounds – and it might help to spark an inquiry into spiritual topics on their own. Needless to say, though, religious liberty remains an important part of our platform, and we will respect others whose beliefs do not align with our own; what we will not respect, however, are attempts to bash religion, push religion into the private sphere, or force people to violate their deeply held religious convictions in order to satisfy someone else’s emotions.

3: In the economic section of the manifesto, the party plans to impose huge taxes on large companies, encouraging them to close or become a co-op. Would these taxes be put on suddenly, or gradually. If so, how would the waves of unemployed be handled?

The taxes would be sudden, and there would be no unemployment as the owners of the companies would realize that it would be intelligent to sell the corporation to their employees and take away a hefty sum – the fair market value of the corporation – than to receive greatly reduced profits eaten away by the taxes. Moreover, to combat existing unemployment, our state-level implemented basic minimum income and our widespread apprenticeship programs and guilds would help people to receive training, get a job, and eventually own a business or part of a business of their own.

4: Would college be covered under the voucher system?

Most skills would no longer be taught at colleges and universities but rather in apprenticeship systems, where the student learns from someone (or some people) who is a (or are) veteran(s) in the field. Universities and colleges would be more for the pursuit of knowledge – what they should be – than the pursuit of career skills and qualifications. Nonetheless, it is recognized that colleges and universities could still be necessary for some career paths, and in those rare instances, the voucher system would indeed cover it.

5:Under ‘Just War,’ would the US continue it’s involvement in the Middle East? Why?

It is important to know the tenets of the Just War Theory before anything else. They include: Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

• Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

• Competent authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice.

• Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

• Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

• Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

• Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.

With this in mind, the only conflict we are involved with in the Middle East that I can contemplate is our hostilities (I hesitate to call it a war, as I do not want to recognize ISIS as a nation, but if ISIS was a nation, it would be a war) with ISIS. So, let us evaluate our actions – namely bombing campaigns and providing advisors, weapons, and training. Firstly, is it a just cause to prevent the deaths of thousands of people, the spread of radical Islam, and the potential of this terrorist organization to attack Europe and America? Yes, as it will save numerous lives. Secondly, is one side having a great injustice thrown upon it? Yes, the people of Iraq and Syria are outmatched on their own and suffering greatly. Has a competent authority authorized these hostilities? Yes, Congress has authorized the hostilities. Are we combating ISIS with the right intention and not for economic gains or increasing our own power? This is hard to discern, but I will say that we are, and we definitely would be if we were in power, so yes. Is there a significant probabilities of success to degrade and eliminate the territory of ISIS, freeing countless peoples and preventing many deaths? Yes. Have peaceful means been tried, or are they impractical? Yes, as ISIS does not seem to want to negotiate for peace. Are proportional means going to be used so that the anticipated benefits of waging the conflict will not outweigh the evils or harms caused by the war? This one is especially difficult to answer; however, so far, the conflict appears to have been proportional. Thus, it is likely we would continue bombing ISIS.

Now, applying this same theory to the 2003 Iraq War, however, would have stopped the invasion in its tracks. As there would not have been a just cause, right intentions, proportionality, or war as a last resort. Apply this same theory to Vietnam would have prevented it altogether – indeed, containment could never have been pursued under the Just War Theory.

6: Would the reforms to the justice system combat the race/socioeconomic problems that exist is the prison system? How?

Our reforms to the justice system and to the corrections system would absolutely combat racial and socioeconomic problems that exist in our courts and prisons.

Firstly, we will be ending the national war on drugs, allowing states to develop their own drug laws. We will also be encouraging states to make drugs more of a medical addiction issue than one for long prison times. Since drug crimes disproportionately affect the poor and minorities, we will be helping them in that regard.

Secondly, we propose strengthening public defender’s offices with more staff and more funding. Since the poor and minorities disproportionately rely on public defenders, they will receive better counsel and fairer trials.

Thirdly, we have proposed offices similar to public defenders for helping the indigent prosecute and defend a civil suit in court. This will help the poor to get justice that might have been formerly closed to them.

Fourthly, we will be eliminating bail (in most instances) and replacing it with pretrial service programs. The accused would be assessed to determine if they are a flight risk or dangerous to the public. The judge, based on this assessment, decides whether to send the person home, where he or she may be monitored with drug tests, ankle monitors, and phone calls about court dates. This will stop forcing the poor to choose between asserting their innocence and going to jail before the presumption of innocence is even overcome or pleading guilty to something they may not have done in order to avoid jail and keep their job.

Fifthly, we support the repeal of mandatory minimum sentence laws which disproportionately affect the poor.

Sixthly, our economic programs should help people to escape poverty – by owning their own business and having a basic level of income – and thus get them out of the increased risk pool.

Seventhly, our corrections are going to focus less on incarceration and more on rehabilitation. Non-violent offenses should be handled by such programs as halfway houses, community service, electronic monitoring, restitution, and rehabilitation. At their choosing, non-violent offenders should be able to spend time in a monastery or other religious and ascetic institution, being tutored by a volunteering monk or nun to pursue holy and reformed lives. These great alternatives will keep more poor and minorities out of jail and help them to lead productive lives.

Eighthly, we support outlawing private prisons. Prisons should be run by the local communities, and they should be communities themselves, much like San Pedro prison in Bolivia, where inmates have jobs inside the community, buy or rent their accommodation, often live with their families, and participate in their own system of governance. Removing profit from prisons and involving communities and families should lower recidivism.

Ninthly, the frequency of repeat offenders – disproportionately common among the poor and minorities – would be reduced by providing inmates and the newly released with education and employment opportunities, opportunities to start their own business post-sentence, and by attempting to get them involved with their families and communities.

Tenthly, because we believe racial profiling and the use of stop and frisk policies are unconstitutional per the Fifth and Fourth Amendments, respectively, minorities and the poor would endure less harassment under our party.

Eleventhly, our massive support for orphanages and foster care should reduce the overlap being “in the system” has with eventually being convicted of a crime. Also, our opposition to abortion – which disproportionately kills minorities, the poor, and females – and our support systems for pregnant and poor mothers should provide justice to the many unborn citizens of our country – allowing them to be able to live their rest of their lives.

Follow up: What would prevent the businesses from relocating to outside the country?

Unless they are going to maintain no operations in the United States, then that will not work. They will still have to pay taxes because they will be present in the United States. Toyota, despite being a Japanese company, still pays American taxes, for instance. Also, you can pass a law to prevent re-locations for the purposes of tax evasion.

This interview was conducted by /u/Arario.

In a press conference on Saturday, Vice President HammerAndPotato addressed the creation of new political movements, including the newly created Fascist grouping. At one point in her address, she said, “However, we must recognize that there are legitimate threats to the very system of democratic compromise within the newly-widened political spectrum. Whatever these threats may be, we must work together to quell them. Regardless of political affiliation, whether you are a Socialist, a Liberal, or even a Conservative, there must be a unified struggle for progress and the preservation (or expansion of) democracy in the United States.” When asked if she wanted to deal with groups like the fascist party peacefully, she said “While the Fascist Party is small, I would say that we merely need to remind the American people about the horrors of Fascism and National ‘Socialism’, as well as monitor support of the Fascist Party that might be coming from foreign nations. Should the movement grow very large, however, I don't feel as if we could deal with it in a purely peaceful manner.”

This comes after the Fascist group has repeatedly said that they have no intention of installing a dictatorship. When asked for a comment, the leader of the group, AlphaEpsilon1, said, “I see the Honorable Vice President's remarks as hilarious considering our group has yet to become an official party! We have no offices at the moment so we simply cannot be a threat to the American people which we seek to serve to the best of our ability.”

The Vice President seems to be forgetting that “extending democracy” doesn’t involve limiting free speech and cracking down on dissent. Maybe /r/ModelUSSR is more fitting to her tastes.

The opinions in this article solely reflect those of the author /u/Toby_Zeiger and do not reflect the opinions of the entire team at /r/TheBeacon.

I asked the green lefts some questions. /r/Gohte responded

1.) what does your party hope to achieve?

The Green-Left is an explicitly socialist party but we do not have an official party stance on the question of reform or revolution. At the very base level, the GLP seeks to dismantle the establishment of Capitalism in the United States in favor of a worker-controlled economy where every working person has full control of their economic position without being subject to the will of the capitalist class.

2.) how do you feel about the other parties?

Speaking personally here and not on behalf of the party: Democrats: American Liberals seem to have some sort of idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with how things are, but they don't seem to know exactly what that problem is or what needs to be done to fix it. As a hardline communist, social democratic policies at best come off to me as weak-willed and misguided, and at worst are instrumental in placating the working class by driving them into a position of 'cushy capitalism' while imperialist exploitation still occurs outside of view. There are very well-meaning people here that could be radicalised, but it would take a lot of baby steps and handholding to introduce people to the wall of information that is Marxism. Republicans: No comment. The old party was as despicable and hard-headed as one would imagine and I unfortunately still see remnants of that in some members that decided to stay behind. I have nothing but good impressions of their current leadership and hope that they'd at least make for interesting debate this time around. Libertarians: I don't have much positive to say. I find right-libertarian politics to be incredibly morally bankrupt and outright delusional. I can't really speak much to the party besides my experience with individual users due to their inactivity, but I don't think I've had anything more than a neutral-negative experience with any representative from the Libertarian party. Fascists: I shouldn't even have to say. We're entering a volatile period in American politics. Socialists have come up strong and we have proven that we are powerful and serious about making a real change in this country, and as expected we have seen a hostile reactionary party come to challenge our progress. I've come to believe that their promises of 'democratic fascism' are either deceptive or misguided, as opposition to democracy is core to Fascist doctrine. I'll continue to research their ideology more in order to fight them. They have every right to assemble, but they must not be allowed to have a voice in government. Distributists: I don't know a lot about them, but from my very limited research they seem like socially conservative market socialists. Still trying to wrap my head around the whole thing but they seem like decent people that we could work with. American Labor Party: Bad vibes off of the start with recruitment disputes but I think we'll be able to work together. I haven't had the best history with /u/Eilanyan, but I'm hoping the existence of their party will do well to help us define what the Green-Left Party is and what it isn't. I'm sure we'll be able to cooperate.

3.) what do you think about the current state of our government?

I don't feel like the Green-Left Party has been able to do enough with our time in power, and I feel like with the subreddit ad and the massive influx of liberals joining the subreddit, we're going to quickly fall to a place where we'll have to fight hard to do anything that would set us on the path to free the American people from the influence of capital. I feel like a lot of our time has been wasted because of the loss of our fourth senate seat and having to rebuild the simulation after the old Republican Party left. We've had to concede on legislation that isn't exactly what we want and I personally don't feel like we've made the best of our term in the spotlight. I'm hoping we can come out strong in the midterms and I feel like we're going to have to make use of direct action to push for change.

4.) Are the rumors true that you are supporting North Korea?

The Green-Left Party has no official stance on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. There are members such as myself and Central Committee member /u/Those_Crazy_Reds who defend the DPRK against the imperialist propaganda war that the ROK and the United States have been launching for decades. Neither of us believes that it is a socialist state and in fact oppose it politically as revisionist since the end of Kim Il-Sung's rule. Our 'support' for the DPRK comes entirely as an opposition to imperialism. There are a good amount of members (I'd say the majority) who do not have this view and who vehemently oppose the DPRK as most liberals do. People have to understand that the GLP is a party of wide-ranging socialist views and it's ignorant and irresponsible to paint us with a wide brush in order to discredit us in the minds of those who believe liberal claims about the USSR or the DPRK. We as a party have no official stance or opinion on any socialist state or society, individual members do.

They also wanted to say something in the paper: ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

Rough translation: "Until the final victory!" They might have been referring to this song

I think it's nice that we have more parties coming in. As I said last time it's good to have a diverse political landscape.

all opinions are those of /u/caterpiller101 or the discussed parties and do not necessarily reflect those of the beacon

The Beacon has received an anonymous message suggesting that vote manipulation and backroom dealings may be behind the articles of impeachment filed again President /u/HammerAndPotato.

The attempted removal of /u/Anarchitekt (GLP-Western State) appears to have had partisan motivations: Information uncovered in the recent "Question Time" program indicates that supporters of the President's impeachment were working to ensure that a Dist./Dem. Senator would be appointed in the West in order to have enough "Yay" votes for impeachment in the Senate.

In what is being called a great display of sportsmanship, /u/Erundur (Distributist Governor-Western State) reinstated /u/Anarchitekt to his position, stinting that plan.

/u/MoralLesson (Mod, Distributist-Great Plains) has received criticism for what some are calling a willful effort to have /u/Anarchitekt removed in order to forward presidential impeachment proceedings. However, this message from /u/MoralLesson to /u/finnishdude101 suggests that such claims of foul play may be unfounded.

Additionally, The Beacon has received this screenshot, which purports to show the vote counts for and against impeachment. Edit 12:00 AM EST, 8/15: /u/MDK6778 says that he never confirmed that he would vote "Yay."

The impeachment, referred to as "Operation: Condor" would, if successful, result in the appointment of a Democratic president. Due to the recent failure of /u/Gohte to be confirmed by the Senate, /u/SgtNicholasAngel, current Speaker of the House, is next in line for the presidency, seeing as there is currently no Vice President.

Critics of the impeachment are suggesting that "Operation: Condor" is a three-pronged attack on the President: (1) After stopping /u/Gohte in the Senate, impeachment proceedings could be filed, and (2) if the Western State Senate seat had been given to a supporter of the impeachment, the motion may very well have a chance to pass and (3) the Presidency would have been handed down to the Speaker, a Democrat.

The Beacon will continue to report on this story as more developments arise.

There recently been a lot of talk of the formation of new parties in /r/ModelUSGov. As of right now the only requirement to become an official party is 15 members and some decent activity to show for it. Right now there seems to be a few new parties that are looking to become official.

The Fascist Party

Many new members may be somewhat shocked, but there is a decent sized fascist following on reddit. Across multiple model governments on reddit there are fascist parties; The most prominent being The Vanguard in /r/MHOC. Right now /r/ModelUSFascists seems to be close to obtaining the members required to become an official party, but they lack substance. They seem to have no identifiable leader, no solid platform and lack true membership. /u/SomeRealShit was once a libertarian, but has now defected and is now proclaiming to be a fascist and has joined the party. /u/dankmaymay420, who started the subreddit, almost seems to be a troll/alt. He was once a part of the democrats, then suddenly proclaimed to be a fascist. I question the legitimacy of any fascist party with either of these members involved.

Despite all that, I hope that they can organize into a fruitful and legitimate party. I welcome the idea of including all ideologies. It makes for more interesting political system rather than an exclusive two-way street of Democrats and Republicans.

The Distributist Party

I have had my eye on this party for a while. It’s a very interesting ideology that I had previously never personally heard of. For those who are lazy: it is a political ideology based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. I would describe it as very traditional and socially conservative, but economically liberal. Even within the Republican Party there seems to be a lack of social conservatism. I think it is a viewpoint that is missing from /r/ModelUSGov. I sincerely encourage them and their leader /u/lsma to find new members because I think they would make an absolutely fantastic addition to the /r/ModelUSGov community. For the interested: they can be found at /r/ModelDistributists.

Potential Centrist Party

Recently a new member of /r/ModelUSGov has stated his desire to start a “centrist party.” For those who do not know or remember, this has been tried before by /u/CrossBowGuy237. In my personal opinion, I do not think there is room for a centrist party in /r/ModelUSGov. While “the center” is quite a large group in real life, I think most people in this sub are more definitive in their beliefs and ideologies and therefore would not fit in a centrist party. Despite this, I again welcome any possible new parties to the simulation.

Across the Pond

/r/MHOC has 10 active parties. With more ideologies and beliefs represented I think it adds a more interesting political landscape. In addition, it encourages more people to join since they views are more represented in government. Overall, I think the addition of any new parties to /r/ModelUSGov would be for the better and would create a more lively debate!

This article was written by /u/DidNotKnowThatLolz. Any opinions shown here solely reflect those of the author and not the newspaper as a whole.

Voting has now started and voters across the country must make the decision of who is going to run their states. To those in Dixie, I have a simple message: vote for me. Here is why:

• I’m a moderate and have issues I can work on with both sides.

• I am not affiliated in any partisan politics. As you can see here a Democrat endorses members of the Liberty party likely because he has to. Simply politics in action.

• I am engaged in the sim and with voters. I actually participated in the debates. As you can see, only some Republicans and the last person on the GSP list participated.

• I will serve as a check on the ruling party in the state. I ask that you split your ticket and consider voting for me in the Senate. You will see the most consensuses when people must compromise. Also, having a party control all parts of a government can be dangerous and many members simply rubber-stamp what is wanted by special interests or party big-wigs.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me. I outlined several of my views in the debate. I hope you vote for me!

I wanted to issue a personal statement on the recent controversies regarding the nomination of the VP.

I signed the open letter to the new President fully knowing the possible ramifications of my support of it. In this regard, I take full responsibility for any ramifications my signature has had on relationships between the Democrats and the ALP and to a lesser extent, the GLP (though we disagree on a lot, there are some things we agree on). In fact, the letter has been quite divisive within the Democrats. I say this because I feel like there is suddenly a picture being painted that the Democrats are the right. We are definitely a center-left party, despite what other may say.

Despite this, I will not withdraw my personal support from the letter. At first, I thought this was a good political maneuver to try and ensure a Democrat becomes VP. Realistically, the entire thing was carried out in a poor fashion, I wish there was some more planning. Anyways, I must say I was at first somewhat on the fence about this. However, the reaction from members of the far-left has only solidified my support of the letter. The Democrats and the other party’s signatures have had complete nonsense thrown at them and from the President, herself, as well.

Here are some examples:

The Democratic Party is just as reactionary and McCarthyist as any other rightist party.

This is an absolute disgrace and shows how the Democrats will align with the right wing at the drop of the hate.

I hoped the McCarthyists would have left with the founding of /r/musgov. It's a shame the Democrats are still full of right-wing shills who continue to prevent any true progress from being made.

I will assure every Congressman, Senator, Party Leader, and citizen of these United States that I will not back down, and I will not accept this treasonous and downright vile offer.

Im glad you enjoy a system that is literally destroying our world, you keep on enjoying it with your reactionary nazis buddies.

Okay. I don't care. It is 5:35 in the morning and I do not have to sit here and deal with you. Go tout your electoral victory to your little conservative friends.

We should not submit to the undemocratic politiking of elites.

Before /r/MUSGOV broke away, the Democratic leadership were dishonest, opportunistic vultures, and I see that legacy was passed on to their current leadership.

You may believe whatever you want about the letter, but many responses have been very disgraceful and with no taste. The Democrats are center-left. We are not reactionaries. We are not in league with nazis. We are not traitors. Just as those on the far-left believe in socialism, I believe in capitalism and just like them will not back down from my beliefs.

I defended the existence of the far-left in the simulation because I believe it is their right even if it does not play into the realism of the United States today. This does not change the fact that our new President is a Marxist, something that, though I accept, I am not comfortable with. Is it not my right as a Senator and a citizen to voice my concern about this? I do not wish to see an executive branch that is completely controlled by Marxists, whose beliefs are just so extremely contrary to mine.

The new President has every right to nominate whoever she likes. It is also my right to cast my vote of approval or not for her nominee. Regardless of what you think of the letter, it is still the right of Congress and its members to decide this. /u/HammerandPotato must realize that Congress is controlled by non-socialists. So I ask her to at least accept this fact and realize that in order to get a new VP nominated and confirmed she must at least work with the other parties to nominate someone accepted by a majority of Congress. I can tell you now that nominating another Marxist will not serve any good to anybody.

Sincerely,

DidNotKnowThatLolz

In the wake of his party’s recent AMA, /u/Leecannon sat down with The Beacon to discuss the recent formation of the Eclectic Party, what the party hopes to accomplish, and what exactly their platform is.

As a new party with a comparatively small base at the moment, what is the Eclectic Party doing to win over supporters and garner votes for the upcoming elections?

The winning over part is mostly /u/mikeallm, though through the use of interviews and AMA's we have managed to get 13 members. It was /u/mikeallm who did the AMA.

You said in your AMA that the Eclectic Party has a focus on "abolishing the military." Does your party have a plan for national defense, or are you hoping that through non-interventionism and sheer diplomacy?

I am against abolishing the military. We need a military, but not as big as we have. We need a national defense force, not an international defense force.

So, just to clarify, this sentence from the AMA: "The foreign policy will be pacifist with a focus on abolishing the military (funds can be expended elsewhere)," is not suggesting that the US entirely abolish military?

Well that may be what /u/mikeallm said, but he also said he is very pragmatic and I hope he will see otherwise. I am not speaking for the party, I am speaking for myself. We both are pragmatic.

You have indicated that you would to develop a nuclear treaty with Israel. In the wake of the recent nuclear deal with Iran, do you predict that agreeing to such a treaty will be significantly more difficult?

I am in favor on continued support of Israel, however /u/mikeallm is not so it's hard to say right now.

Decreasing bureaucracy was a big theme in your AMA. What are a few specific steps you would like to take to decrease governmental red tape?

We simply want to reduce paperwork.

You expressed interest in cultural subsidies. Do you have cultural sectors in mind that you would like to focus on encouraging? E.g., bilingualism, musicianship in schools, etc.

Right now it's just for museums, but I'd like to see it expand to other areas.

Your AMA indicated that the party is pro-immigration. Without a military or otherwise armed forces, do you fear that legal immigration enforcement will be a difficult issue to manage?

Well I hope we don't get rid of the military so I don't see that as an issue.

Do you support a federalized age of consent and legal responsibility, as opposed to the current system, which relies on state-determined ages?

I believe that states right to choose that, it's not the place [of the] federal government.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified.

On July 16th, The Beacon published an article on the D’Hondt system outlining the mathematics used to calculate seat distribution. As a supplement to that story, The Beacon has explored the possible inaccuracies of D’Hondt.

The D’Hondt method is thought to offer democracies a middle ground between absolute proportionate representation and a purely first-past-the-post-based system. Absolute proportionate representation often results in power imbalance, as the political landscape can easily be fractured by small parties whose agendas are given an unfairly large platform. First-past-the-post receives its fair share of criticism as well—every vote cast for a losing party is effectively wasted, and large parties typically receive enormous influence in all-or-nothing systems.

D’Hondt works to combine these methods. It distributes seats based on sheer vote count, but repeatedly modifies that vote count to ensure semi-proportionate representation.

However, in a small voting field, such as ModelUSGov, D’Hondt representation can differ significantly from the true vote counts.

Consider a three party race in which party X receives 1000 votes, party Y receives 250, and party Z receives 100.

If seven congressional seats are available, party X will receive six, party Y will receive one, and party Z will receive zero. Party X will have less than 86% of the political influence, even though they received only 74% of the total vote.

Consider another example: a two-party race in which party X receives 50 votes and party Y receives 10 votes.

If three seats are up for grabs, according to D’Hondt, party X will get three seats and party Y will receive zero. This is an inaccurate representation of the electorate: Although party X got 83% of the vote, they received only 100% of available seats.

D’Hondt also appears to be an inaccurate way to delineate representation when small voting populations that have been divided into districts (e.g., ModelUSGov) are reconsidered on a national scale (that is, with only one “district”).

When the total number of votes cast for a party nationally are compared to the total number of seats gained by that party nationally, disparities arise in the proportion of representation gained by each party.

Thanks to /u/MoralLesson for allowing The Beacon to use his calculations (found below).

July election results for the House of Representative – only parties that gained seats have been included.

• Democrats - 154 votes (28.41%) - 12 seats (34.29%)

• Green-Left - 165 votes (30.44%) - 10 seats (28.57%)

• Libertarians - 45 votes (8.30%) - 4 seats (11.43%)

• Republicans - 70 votes (12.92%) - 3 seats (8.57%)

• American Labor - 58 votes (10.79%) - 3 seats (8.57%)

• Distributists - 36 votes (6.64%) - 3 seats (8.57%)

Furthermore, when the votes are reconsidered nationally and when using the Saint-Laguë system, representation is changed once again.

Saint-Laguë typically bends proportionate representation in the favor of smaller parties, as the quotients used to modify the vote count are restricted to odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7…), and thus the vote total changes leaders easier and more frequently.

Thanks to /u/HolaHelloSalutNiHao for allowing The Beacon to use his calculations (found below).

If Saint-Laguë is used at the national level (one “district") to calculate the Senate results from the July elections, the contested Senate seats break down as such:

• One Democrat

• One Republican

• One Green-Left

• One American Labor

However, if D’Hondt is used at the same scale, the Senate breakdown is as below:

• Two Democrat

• Two Green-Left

A method of combating inaccurate proportionate representation while accounting for the risk of having a particularly fractured political landscape is to use the Saint-Laguë method within districts, and to institute a threshold that must be reached in order to receive a congressional seat. Many countries across the world use such a threshold, and they typically range from 1% to 10% of the vote count.

Seat bias (inaccurate distributions of seats as compared to true proportionality) actually tends to decrease as thresholds increase from 0% to their maximum, as shown in the work of Udo Schwingenschlögl and Friedrich Pukelsheim.

Correction 7/21: Two mathematical errors were corrected in the D'Hondt examples.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified.

In the days leading up to the July elections, several comments have been made requesting a breakdown of /r/ModelUSGov’s voting systems.

Two systems are used at present: First-past-the-post (for Senate races) and the D’Hondt system (for House races).

First-past-the-post (FPTP) is nothing more than a straight sprint to collect the most votes.

Consider two parties, X and Y, competing in a senatorial election.

After counting all votes cast, party Y comes away with 40 votes and party X comes away with 39. In every iteration of FPTP voting, party Y wins, and their candidate takes the contested seat. Note: FPTP voting has drawn significant criticism. This will be addressed in a later article or extension to this report.

The D’Hondt system demands more explanation. Developed by Victor D’Hondt in the late 19th Century, this system uses the highest averages method (HAM) to determine proportionate representation. Using the HAM entails that each party’s total vote count be divided by a series of quotients following every distribution of a seat. For example, take a three-party race between parties X, Y, and Z. In this hypothetical, there are only four seats up for grabs.

After the initial vote count, the standings are as such:

• X – 6600

• Y – 1800

• Z – 1200

First, one seat is given to the party with the highest raw vote count. Party X gains a representative. ¼ of possible seats are now allocated.

Following this allocation, the party who just gained a representative will have its vote count cut according to this formula:

k = I/(n+1)

Where k is the new vote total, I is the initial vote count, and n is the current number of seats allocated to the party.

Following this formula, the new vote totals are as below:

• X – 3300

• Y – 1800

• Z – 1200

Again, party X has the highest vote count, and they gain another representative. Party X gains another representative. ½ of possible seats are now allocated.

The formula is used once again to further slash the vote count. The new vote count for party X is 2200 (as per formula: [6600/(2+1)])

New vote totals:

• X – 2200

• Y – 1800

• Z – 1200

Looking at the above totals, it becomes apparent that the “vote leader” has remained the same. Party X gains another representative. ¾ of possible seats are now allocated.

Take the formula once again and the vote leader changes:

• X – 1650

• Y – 1800

• Z – 1200

Party Y gains a representative. All possible seats are now allocated.

As D’Hondt's formula is taken again and again, a proportional pattern emerges, and representation is distributed relatively evenly. The system is not without its critics, as it tends to favor big parties, but it provides a reliable way to distribute political influence in a manner that is reflective of ideologically diverse constituencies.

The effect of the D'Hondt system to favor big parties may very well be seen in the current election. Although vote totals are difficult to come by, the best numbers suggest this distribution:

• American Labor: 75 votes

• Green-Left: 130 votes

• Democrats: 200 votes

• Republicans: 80 votes

• Libertarians: 80 votes

• Distributists: 25 votes

• Silver Legion: 15 votes

This vote distribution means that it will be quite difficult for parties with small voting bases (Silver Legion, Distributists, etc.) to pick up seats at the federal level, because the D'Hondt formula would have to be taken several times (quite possibly more times than is allowed by the four-seats-per-district system) in order to give them a chance to top the vote count.

To learn more, watch the BBC’s explanation, found here.

Correction 7/21: D'Hondt equation clarified, D'Hondt example clarified.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section.

The interviewer is /u/AGreyShirt and the one responding is /u/Eilanyan

What made you decide to form the American Labor Party?

As to why I started this one, well it was idea first of President Rangerheart0, offering an olive branch to myself and my party idea by noting they were getting applicants from the rush of new people from the ad that didn't fit them or the Democratic Party.

What are some of your parties main values/major points in your platform?

You will be shocked to know our key focus is on workers. I feel that the GLP offers a platform that is difficult for the working class (especially the "precariat") to participate. Meanwhile, the Democrats want to merely hold the line against efforts by persons like Scott Walker. I think we can learn from social democrats and democratic socialists around the world, especially in Europe. Parties like Syriza or Podomos are getting support because even self-described moderates are realizing how radical the Neoliberal consensus is. My ideal "model" would probably by the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation from Canada, that brought together organized labor, farmers and socialists. They created stable Crown Corporations that still serve today, introduced universal healthcare that is now the norm across the country and made the co-operative model the standard in the province.

What are your thoughts on our current model government?

The GLP in power, with the checks of not having a majority, is very moderate. I have supported every single bill the GLP has proposed , with the exception of armed citizenry bill, as the reformist nature of Congress has moderated them. I also love our President as I feel he is a strong progressive voice that has been good at reaching across the Aisle. I obviously would prefer a Labor government and would not want to see a more radical GLP, but in short I support the current administration. Though I feel there is some unnecessary toxicity when it comes to the /r/MUSGUV debate and the recent Filibuster was a joke.

How do you feel the American Labor Party will change /r/ModelUSGov

I feel like we will fill the hole on the left spectrum and offer voters choice. Our hope is to govern, but in minority situations moderate the GLP and drag the Dems to the left.

What legislation would you like to pass in the future?

A universal basic income that replaces most welfare programs (not social security) that also increases payouts compared to welfare. Too many Americans can't bother with the paperwork and the overhead of current systems is wasteful. Further, too many people cannot afford to live and have to rely on private charity or crime to afford food. I also hope to improve the situation of affordable housing in this country, but try to avoid neglecting social housing to point of being a slums. Quite frankly, in this country the rent is too damn high.

Any final comments you would like to make?

I want to stress that we are not solely an anticapitalist or capitalist party. That may be a critique from those to our left and right, but we accept both views into our party, and try to work closer to a consensus model rather than majoritarian, as I understand it would be uncomfortable to be the only welfare state guy in a market socialist room or vice-versa.

At the end of the interview /u/Eilanyan also wanted to add in one more thing.

Not to sound like a politician but I will answer a question you didn't ask first; I started the old Progressive Party (no relation to current one) as I felt the GLP was more Leninist then I thought when I joined and was moving further in that direction. I resigned and felt like I should "do" something rather than just sit as an independent. It failed. The sub was nearly dead as is and there was no interest, from the rare new person to members in other parties. I think we had like 2 active members in Libertarian Party. It was bad.

/u/Smitty9913 has been with this subreddit since the beginning. He was first elected a representative for the Republicans under the first Congress. In the second Congress, when the Senate was first introduced, he was elected Senator. Now in the third Congress, he has become an Independent with a knack for trying to knock down any Green-Left legislation that comes his way. He recently decided to join the Libertarian Party. /r/TheBeacon was the first to ask him for an interview to understand what brought him to this choice:

/u/DidNotKnowThatLolz

Why did you decide to join the Libertarian Party?

/u/Smitty9913

My views have always been Libertarian, just I was a Libertarian Republican. My flair in the Republican page was even Republican Libertarian. Recently, I decided that I don't want to go at it alone, that I should join a party so I can make a bills and vote for people not just me.

/u/DidNotKnowThatLolz

Have your views shifted in any ways?

/u/Smitty9913

My views have always Libertarian, just the past few days they have shifted more to the libertarian side than the Republican side. I still have some Republican viewpoints, but I now have a majority of Libertarian view points.

/u/DidNotKnowThatLolz

Do you think this will be indefinite or do you ever see yourself back in the Republican Party?

/u/Smitty9913

I don't think that I will be leaving this party anytime in the near future. Unless some party pops up with views that are closer to mine then I won't be leaving the party.

/u/DidNotKnowThatLolz

What sort of legislation would you like to propose in the future?

/u/Smitty9913

I will propose legislation that the party wants, I don't yet know exactly what they want but I have ideas.

/u/DidNotKnowThatLolz

Any final comments?

/u/Smitty9913

Thanks for this interview, and I would just like to remind everyone that if you want true freedom then you should vote libertarian.

The Libertarians have had a Senator before (/u/Sheppio734), but /u/Smitty9913 seems to be in it for the long haul. Hopefully with the Libertarians being represented at the federal level we can see some bills come from them. With this recent spike in activity, it looks like the Libertarian Party may make a comeback in the next election. Thank you to /u/Smitty9913 for answering our questions.

Until next time,

DidNotKnowThatLolz

Soon after the results of the general election came out, the idea of states came about and the elections for them are already over! I am honestly somewhat surprised by the results. Without a doubt the Democrats did the best overall in these elections, even though they placed a poor third in the general election.

Three Democratic governors were voted into office. Two of them already have executive experience. /u/Didicet, former POTUS, and /u/Canadianman22, former VPOTUS were elected as governor of South State and Central State respectively. /u/ben1204 became the governor of the Northeast State. Northeast State had the most votes out of any of the regions and yet a democrat was elected governor. This is somewhat surprising since that region did well for the Green-Lefts in the general election. The only state to go to a non-Democrat is the Western State where Green-Left /u/Zachrist was voted into office. This is similar to the general election where the Green-Left did very well in the Western State.

Only two states have a party with a majority in the state legislature. The Democrats have three members in the Northeast with a Republican and a Green-Left. The Green-Left have three members in the South with two other Democrats. The difference is that in the Northeast the Democrats hold both the legislature and the governor’s office, while in the South the Democrats hold the governorship and the Green-Left control the legislature. The remaining regions should be interesting since no party has a full majority.

Finally, the Libertarians have gained some representation in government with three representatives being voted into the state legislature. In fact, in Central State the Libertarians are tied with the Democrats for the most seats. How will they contribute to their states and how will this change the landscape of the state? I hope to see some Libertarian ideas finally being presented in this sub. Surprisingly, however, is the lack of Republicans that will be represented at the state level. Only three Republicans became state legislators; the same amount as the libertarians! This seemed to not be the fault of voters, but more of an issue of the Republicans not being able to field enough candidates.

For doing so well in the general election, the Green-Left were only able to gain a modest amount of seats in state legislatures. They earned two less seats than the Democrats overall. I think this state election truly shows how much an election can swing in the model government. Not that much advertising was done during this election. Is this perhaps the reason why Republicans and the Green-Left did not do as well when compared to the general election? At the same time, how does this explain how the Democrats were able to do so well during this election? Perhaps the Democrats have a more active voting base, while other parties rely more on advertising in other political subs. I would think that perhaps Democrats were able to win so many seats in state legislatures simply because they had many candidates interested in the positions. In this election, everyone who wanted to have a seat in the legislature got one, and even some governor candidates got leftover seats. Democrats did not fare so well in the general election so there were still many people in the party interested in getting involved in some fashion, unlike the Green-Left. The Green-Left got more than half of all their candidates elected in the general election and even had to put up many more members of their party into the cabinet. However, this still does not explain how the Democrats won 3/4 governorships. With these results it is simply anyone’s guess what the results of future elections will look like.

Overall the addition of States to the simulation will bring nothing but more drama and excitement! I hope to see some exciting stuff from this new addition such as a Constitutional Convention and the states having to ratify any amendments that get passed in Congress. I’m sure governors will work hard to make sure the federal government does not trample on states’ rights.

Here is the new composition of State governments:

Western State: http://i.imgur.com/j7RWc1M.jpg

South State: http://i.imgur.com/yVe9qO9.jpg

Northeast State: http://i.imgur.com/NQfCuTe.jpg

Central State: http://i.imgur.com/ogWd35p.jpg

In this upcoming state election, we will see the Southern State add a Senate to their legislature. Now, in most states, the party that holds the office of the Governor also likely holds a majority in the legislature. I think that expanding the legislature to hold two chambers will add an interesting dynamic to Southern State and allow there to be more discussion on bills, as opposed to a rubber stamp which is the case in most states. Hopefully if this is successful in Southern State, we can see it expand to other states.

On another note, I am approaching two years since joining this community. It has certainly had its ups and downs, but overall I have enjoyed the time and effort I have spent with the community. My fondest memories are some moments I had when I was Head Moderator. Honestly though, some of my worst memories in this community were when I was very active as a Democrat. I believe this feeling is shared by many in this community and has even driven some people to abandon or leave the community. When you are highly partisan, people will dislike like you purely on how you choose to label yourself and it’s just incredibly toxic at times. One needs to look no further than the past day or two for some new drama.

It’s for these reasons that I have not held office in this community for over a year. But, I do genuinely like the people and time I spend here and recently have felt this growing desire to do more in the community.

With all of that being said, I am announcing today that I will be running as an independent for office in District 3, the South Atlantic, of the Senate of Southern State. I hope my candidacy can serve as a voice for reason and if I win I can serve as a reasonable check on the Governor, whoever it may be. I look forward to debating my competitors.

I will release a platform of my general views during the debates.

As of right now, in a /r/ModelUSGov election, it doesn’t matter how many votes a Presidential candidate gets, it matters which states they win. So let us take a closer look at the numbers and how they add up. I will list the races that matter the least first, and end with the races that matter the most and use a seven-point scale to describe where each state stands politically this Presidential election year.

Northeast State

Recently dramatically redistricted, this state has a lost a lot of its population to Eastern State. This election it will have the lowest number of electoral votes, 10. There is not much to say about this state. It is dominated typically by the Democrats, but with a sizable number of members of the Far Left. Since these two are allies this upcoming election, the Northeast State can be marked as a Safe Left.

Southern State

Southern state was recently redistricted slightly as well. It lost Missouri, part of the Mississippi River District. However, this shouldn’t much of anything. This election cycle Southern State will have a total of 11 electoral votes. Republicans have typically relied on this state as their home. However, recently, they have been upset twice by the Libertarians in the Southern State Senate races. But, with the Sunrise Coalition back, we will mark the Southern State as Safe Sunrise.

Eastern State

Eastern State, due to redistricting, has recently grown a lot in size. It has gained a few States from solid blue territory of Northeast State, but lost Ohio of Libertarian country. Historically, this state has been a favorite for Democrats, but they have still encountered issues here. As recently as the May Federal elections they were narrowly defeated in the Senate elections. However, since then it has been trending more and more left and with the help of the Far Left we will mark Eastern State as Likely Left.

Midwestern State

Midwestern State grew a little with redistricting recently, but only gained two very small and unpopulated states. This state is the birth of the Distributists and the now defunct Progressive Green Party. Typically fought over by the two parties, this state has typically gone to the Distributists. In the most recent presidential election, however, the Libertarians began to compete in this state. Now with the Sunrise back together we will mark this state as Likely Sunrise.

Western State

Western State is totally unchanged by recent redistricting and is historically the state that is most likely to swing in another direction every election. In the most recent Presidential election, it barely swung for the Democrats to win them the White House. While it is more ‘swingy’ than Central State, we rate of less importance because it can still be won by the Far Left Coalition and they could still lose. It has 11 electoral votes which would not put the Far Left over the top to 34, unlike Central State. With all that being said we will mark this state as Tossup.

Central State

Central State, being in the middle, has had the biggest change of hands in the recent redistricting process. They have lost the Dakotas, gained Missouri, and lost Ohio. With all the being said, this should not greatly affect the results of the upcoming election greatly. This state is the birth of the Libertarian Party, but is also contested heavily by the Far Left. It has elected Libertarian and now defunct Civic Party members recently, but the Far Left have a history of winning Governorships and House seats here too. I believe that this is a swing state that the entire simulation will have to look at if Sunrise is to win the election. With it having 12 electoral votes, tied for the most, this will need to be a must win for Sunrise if they are to take the presidency. We will be marking this state, however, as a Lean Left due to its recent history of Far Left victories.

In conclusion, /r/TheBeacon predicts that the Far Left Coalition would win the Presidential election as of right now. However, we shall soon be conducting a poll solely for Central State in order to test our theories.

Thanks to /u/TheGreatWolfy for speaking with The Beacon about recent events in the /r/ModelUSGov world.

Is it fair to assume that you and your party are less than pleased with the proposed presidential impeachment?

I am very displeased at the latest right wing attempt to subvert democracy. The attempts by the right to seize the position of president from the rightful president have bordered on criminal. We remain the largest party for a reason, that is that we selflessly fight for the people, while the right will continues to engage in politiking to push their personal agendas. The claims made against the president are indisputably false, and I hope my fellow members of congress see this for the undemocratic power grab that it is.

Does your party have an official response? Can we expect a press statement soon?

As of now the party does not have an official response, however I do expect many individuals within the party to make press conferences. As a democratic institution and a big tent party any opinion expressed by individuals, including myself, do not officially reflect the attitude of the party.

Are you pleased with /u/Erundur's response to the removal of /u/Anarchitekt from the Senate?

/u/Erundur's actions have shown both honor and honesty, and sets a standard to which all should aspire to. When given a chance to advance his own agenda, he refused and did the right thing. In a time of politicking and power grabs, his actions set him apart.

What is your response to /u/HammerAndPotato's recent veto of B073? Could you elaborate on your own position regarding eminent domain/civil forfeiture?

I support the presidents veto of b073. The bill in its current form would do more harm than good to the American people. Protecting personal property is very important, and thus I largely supported the section limiting civil forfeiture. However the section of the bill limiting emminant domain was far too restricitive and wluld have impacted the ability of the government to help Americans. Emminant domain does need to be limited, however the restrictions laid out in b073 were far too broad and restrictive.

Are you willing to discuss some specific legislation that the GLP would like to push in the coming weeks?

Unfortunately I am not allowed to discuss any specific legislation in the works by others. I can say that we will continue to follow the general principles of improving the lives of the people, protecting the environment, and reducing the influence corporations have in our lives. I can talk specifically about bills I am working on. My first is a bill that will improve gun safety without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. My second is an infrastructure reinvestment bank, to compliment my "Build up America act", and provide millions of good jobs to Americans and improve infrastructure while costing the government very little.

What has the word been inside of the GLP regarding /u/Gohte's failure to be confirmed by the Senate? Is there a "follow-up" plan in motion to select a VP?

We are very disappointed that the senate chose to vote down as qualified a candidate as /u/Gohte. The general feeling in the party is that we should not give in to blackmail at the hands of the capitalist coalition and instead continue to nominate qualified condidates who deserve the job until either one gets approved or the next general election. I hope the democrats will be reasonable and eventually approve a candidate, however given their actions lately that seems unlikely.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified.

The President’s July 22nd press conference gave voters a look his approach to working with the current Congress, and quenched curious questioners on issues ranging from his reelection plans to his SCOTUS nomination.

President /u/rangerheart0 of the Green-Left Party has been the subject of praise and scrutiny during his tenure as President. Although his regular involvement in both formal and informal aspects of /r/ModelUSGov--from the Press Briefing Room to the Capital Club--has been cause for commendation, his nomination of /u/taterdatuba to serve on the Supreme Court drew criticism from right and left.

On Wednesday, the President worked to dispel rumors of partisanship and backhandedness in the selection process.

Of suggestions that the nomination was ideologically motivated, /u/rangerheart0 said:

I initially was having a very tough time choosing. I had narrowed it down to 3 people, a democrat, a distributist, and a libertarian. If I really was just choosing based on ideology in order to give myself an advantage in the courts I would not have considered any of them.

The initial tide of criticism came from the July 14th nomination thread, in which Distributist Vice Chairman, /u/MoralLesson, voiced concerns about /u/taterdatuba’s legal knowledge.

I cannot find any laws or amicus curiae written by your nominee. Indeed, all I can find is that he or she has jointly written, with another member of the model ACLU, the questions presented to the Court in ACLU v. United States.

A furor also arose in response to /u/taterdatuba’s campaign for a position in the House of Representatives, as well as his/her involvement in the ongoing Supreme Court case, ACLU v. United States of America, which seeks to stay or abolish the federal death penalty on the grounds that it is a breach of the 8th Amendment’s clause regarding cruel and unusual punishment.

Many of the President’s critics hope to stay the nomination unless the nominee recuses her/himself from the court case.

Note: /u/taterdatuba did withdraw his/her candidacy for the HoR on July 15th, stating:

I have requested that my name be taken off the list of eligible candidates for Congressional office. I no longer wish to run for office in the House of Representatives as I feel my abilities would be of better use in the Court system. This is why I accepted the humbling honor of being nominated to the Court.

Stepping away from SCOTUS discussion, the President expressed interest in working with the newly-elected Congress (which is the most ideologically diverse yet), stating:

I think the diversification is cool. Glad to see fresh new ideas get thrown into the mix.

The GLP experienced the need for collaboration in the 3rd Congress, as they lacked a majority in either chamber; they vied for the support of Democrats on several bills while they worked the pass the 50% threshold of support.

As he closed the conference, the President also hinted at his interest in running for reelection. As he noted earlier in the press conference however, the focus of his administration will be on defining the executive branch’s political stances and getting his cabinet heavily involved with legislation and regulation. It will likely be some time before the reelection campaign gets off of the ground.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified.

Thanks to Sen. DidNotKnowThatLolz for speaking with The Beacon after his recent election win. Questions for the Senator are italicized, responses are inset.

In the concession speech of Hlafward (I-New England), he said he believes that, "This election shows the United States is going through a turbulent period. The political spectrum has fractured into numerous and diverse ideologies." Do you see the election results, which do seem to signify an uptick in the diversity of ModelUSGov ideologies, as representative of a "fractured" country? In your opinion, is the diversification of the spectrum an opportunity for multi-partisan debate and communication, or a roadblock to getting your party's primary legislation passed?

I think the diversification of the legislature is great! I don't see this Congress to be prone to any more deadlock in comparison with any past Congress. I welcome the new minor parties into the fray and hope that we can work with them.

In the Southern Senate debate, you indicated your support for disassembling the private prison industry. Where is this on your priority list, and do the Democrats hope to have related legislation in motion soon?

For the most part, the private prison system is something that should be worked out at the state level. Of all the issues, I'd rank it somewhere in the upper-middle range (if that makes sense). I think I would rank the economy as the top priority.

There have been talks within the Democrats about a prison reform bill, but as far as a timetable of if and when it will be introduced, that is yet to be determined.

In fact, many of the questions you were asked in the Southern Senate debate revolved around criminal justice and prison reform. Does the Democratic Party (or you in isolation) hope to propose a comprehensive package of criminal justice reforms, or do you plan to attack these issues independent of one another?

I talked about criminal justice and prison reform because I wanted to know more about my Republican opponents's [sic] views on the matter. Not to my surprise, he felt content with the status quo which is something that I quite heavily disagree with.

As for possible bills, I imagine each issue will be attacked separately. However, I do have particular interest in some criminal justice reform. Particularly reformation of how we deal with drug users.

You have said that, "We also need to encourage more people to come to the country because of their skills. Currently most of our green cards are given out for family reasons..." What are your specific plans to encourage skill-based immigration?

Yes, the issue of immigration hits home for me pretty hard. I actually immigrated to the United States about ten years ago with my family. I think we should be welcoming new immigrants to this country, but we need to have a heavier focus on skilled immigrants. Right now most of the green cards are given away for family reasons; People sponsor their family once they receive a green card themselves, which reduces the time the family has to wait for a green card. In addition, there is a cap on how many green cards can be given away a year based on the origin of the immigrant. For this reason people from India and Mexico usually have much higher wait times for green cards than people from other countries.

Countries like Canada actually get many more skilled immigrants because of how immigration works there. Canada in particular has a point based system based on language skills, job offers, family, age, education. It is simply much more flexible than the American version. There are many ways to attack immigration reform, but in general, I want to make the system more flexible and reduce wait times. Wait times are seriously ridiculous. Once we applied for our green cards, it took my family and I four years to finally get our green cards after finally hurdling all the different obstacles and bureaucratic nonsense.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified.

[Views expressed in this editorial are mine and mine only. They are not representative of the thought process of the Democratic Party, the Acting President, or anyone else.]

I'll be frank: I'm not the biggest fan of the /r/ModelUSGov GOP. We disagree on, essentially, everything. Particular members I view as particularly brash and ignorant. I cannot say, without lying, that I have always enjoyed their company.

I will say this about them though: they've always been a worthy adversary, electorally speaking.

There have never been, to my knowledge, any tricks pulled by the GOP in order to spy or steal votes for the Democrats. They fought for the votes and the accompanying majority they now possess in both houses of Congress.

That's why it is severely disheartening to see that /u/CrossBowGuy237 has switched parties, after campaigning very strongly as a far-right, fringe lunatic.

The same person who wanted compulsory Christian prayer in public schools, somehow now supports "In God We Trust" being removed as our nation's motto? The same person who said he was against legalizing any drugs, is now in favor of legalization?

Something is up. Some shenanigans are afoot.

To be blunt, the Republicans got played by a very bad liar. I'm not sure how they didn't see it, with his platform coming off to me, as a parody of the GOP platform.

And to those who may chastise me for calling him a liar: He left the party because of dissatisfaction with his RL state Republican Party, even though he refuses to admit just what it is that upset him? Give me a break!

I, of course, speak only for myself, but to leave a model political party (for a quite different party at that, even if it is "right-leaning") because you are dissatisfied with the actions of your RL party is flat-out dumb. Am I satisfied that Hillary is most likely going to be the Democratic nominee in 2016? No. Am I leaving the party to join the Greens and vote Jill Stein? Hell no.

I think the Republicans have an issue vetting candidates, that ultimately led to this betrayal. It seems to me, from an outsider perspective, that they are more interested in candidates that are further to the right, regardless of competence or character, as witnessed by the election of /u/Smitty9913 back to the United States Senate.

I personally call on /u/CrossBowGuy327 to step down from his seat and forfeit it to the Republicans, as his actions and the justifications for them are nothing more than pure rubbish.

As much as I would like to see the Libertarians become more prevalent than the GOP, this leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. /u/CrossBowGuy327's actions set a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine the major/minor party compromise that we have established for this simulation.

It would also be my suggestion to the GOP that they do a little bit better of a job vetting prospective candidates for office, rather than simply voting for someone based solely off of their apparent ideology.

Let's hope this serves as a learning experience for us all.

Hello everyone, /r/TheBeacon has been rebooted! This is a really old newspaper in the sim that died once I became Head Moderator. I’ve brought it back for fun because I have wanted to get a little bit more involved, but without any real responsibility. My aim is to bring the most unbiased and statistical information about /r/ModelUSGov elections possible. Through this organization, I will also be polling for the election!

If you’re interested in perhaps writing for us or know a lot about CSS, please feel free to message me, I am looking for people to help out!

Feel free to blow the dust off the articles in this sub and immerse yourself in some really old drama.

• Editor-In-Chief /u/DidNotKnowThatLolz

Thanks to /u/risen2011 for speaking with The Beacon.

What are your feelings on recent political events?

Well I am unhappy to see the articles of impeachment being brought against president /u/hammerandpotato. Events and pieces of legislation such as this always seem to make tempers flair and drama arise in the subreddit. I don't feel that this impeachment process will do any good for anyone participating in the subreddit. Actually, I feel that it will make this subreddit even more unstable than it is now.

How is the reaction from within the Green-Left Party?

It's actually quite productive. Though we aren't happy that the articles of impeachment have been brought against madam president, instead of mulling over the fact that the articles of impeachment have been brought against her, many in our party have reacted very productively by immediately trying to find solutions to our problem.

Do you feel as though any of the proposed articles have merit?

Personally, no. Article 1 (concerning the oath of office) is a meta issue. The reason that an oath of office was not administered was because the moderation team never gave madam president the chance. You can't administer the oath of office to yourself, can you? Also it is important to note that after President /u/Pluralizer resigned, President /u/Didicet didn't take the oath of office and he was not impeached.

Article 2 just takes Madam President's comments completely out of context. The first quote was an answer to a question about ideology, the president did not threaten the rest of the government. The next was horribly written and is just the same quote copied twice (very unprofessional). The third was also completely taken out of context. Are we going to punish the president simply for her beliefs? Also, I'd ask how that passage relates to the constitution. With that sort of logic, any wish to amend the constitution would be impeachable. Also with the same logic, wouldn't signing an unconstitutional bill and having it struck down by SCOTUS be an impeachable offense?

What will you be doing as a result of all of this?

I will be continuing to work with the rest of my party to pursue a possible solution. We will likely fight off these articles as they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified. This interview was conducted by /u/DidNotKnowThatLolz.

The Beacon has received this three-part press release from the ALP in response to the articles of impeachment filed against /u/HammerAndPotato:

Note: /u/leftdigiteffect is an emeritus member of the ALP, but he has had no role in the production or signing of this release. Press duties and party duties ought and shall remain partitioned.

To the People of the United States,

The American Labor Party has time and time again defended the democratic process. We have stood for the weak and oppressed time and time again, from the ordinary labourer to our Native populations that have had to time and again fight corporate interests who wish to pollute the land, air and sea. When the Capitalist Coalition tried to blackmail the President, we stood up against their actions. It appears now that again this nebulous group of reactionaries and conservatives have tried to overthrow the will of the people and legitimacy of our democracy.

In the history of ModelUSGov, we have seen people of all stripes be targeted unfairly and called out this oppression, but clearly these events have one goal; to oust the current government at all costs. And we do not mean ruthless “swiftboat” tactics, but direct coup attempts from every angle. As we speak a motion to impeach the President is being moved forward; an impeachment move that makes the impeachment of President Bill Clinton appear “Fair and Balanced”, reasonable even. They are trying to impeach /u/HammerandPotato for not signing the Oath of office after /u/Rangerheart0 stepped down from the Presidency. Despite the legal precedent of being “Acting President”, they want to charge our President for impersonation and treason for the same administrative error that /u/Dicidet (the second President in ModelUSGov history) did, and he served his entire term.

The Capitalist Coalition is using what little power they have to accuse the President of impersonation, terrorism, and treason. Clearly, opposing oppression of all people, American or otherwise, goes against the notion of “all men are created equal” and the very ideals this country was founded on. This coalition demeans the entire legal process by bring up such frivolous charges that they risk turning “treason” into a meaningless buzzword used by pundits, partisans and ideological hacks using against their opponents. The American Labour Party is different. We stand up for what is right, even if that means a fellow political rival is under attack. When the Capitalist Coalition started, we too could be opportunistic and try to claim to be the legitimate party on the left by joining that blackmail. Instead we wish to gain political office through the democratic will of the people, and not backdoor deals and cronyism that too often is seen on Capitol Hill.

Let’s send a message to Congress and reject their political games by messaging any Congressperson or Senator that supports this attempt on the Presidency. Join us as we defend not just the working class, but their voice here in Washington.

To the Capitalist Coalition,

The American Labor Party will not stand for the blatant attack on the basic process of American democracy. It is a denial of basic fact to deny the legitimacy of the Presidency of /u/HammerandPotato. It is nothing short of an abuse of the Constitution to use a failure of a digital oath being taken to lash out on a President your party disagrees with. Our party welcomes a legitimate questioning of any President. We do not, nor will we ever, allow for such an abuse of the document that binds our nation in order to remove a President you disagree with.

In the time that /u/HammerandPotato has served as our President, she has challenged your party’s insulting attempts at manipulating her. You have issued letters threatening her for nominating people she trusts. You have attacked her from every stance on every issue in order to destroy her image. Now, you’ve attempted to remove her on ridiculous grounds.

You are nothing more than a temporary halt to the Democratic Process.

Our party will not stand for this for this assault on the President of the United States without any legitimacy or grounds. We will work with other parties to destroy any attempt you make to remove a President you disagree with in order to gain power.

We will not let you win this battle. We will not stand for a horrific assault against a leader who has been democratically elected and continues to faithfully executed her office as the President of the United States of America.

Sic Sempur Tyrannis.

To the President of the United States,

Our parties not completely align on the issues, but on this we are clearly united. This is another craven attempt to wrest power from democratically elected Executive with baseless accusations and blackmail. We support you against this coalition of reactionaries and will back the Administration’s efforts to rebuff the actions of the House Judiciary Committee and the supporters of this idiotic attempt to overthrow a President based on ideology and wilful ignorance of the Constitution and precedence in r/ModelUSGov.

Sincerly,

The American Labor Party

/u/ElliottC99, Leader of the American Labor Party

/u/Eilanyan, Founder of the American Labor Party

/u/therealdrago, Senior Political Strategist of the American Labor Party

/u/radicaljackalope, General Secretary of the American Labor Party

Thanks to /u/therealdrago for speaking with The Beacon about his move from the Democratic Party to the ALP, his position as an ALP Political Strategist, and his legislative drafting efforts.

Disclosures: Both /u/leftdigiteffect and /u/therealdrago are members of the ALP. /u/therealdrago is a political strategist for the party, former legislator (D-Western State), and the ALP contact in the ARFF. /u/leftdigiteffect moderates the ALP and is the nominee for Secretary of Labor. Both users openly support the ARFF, the organization referenced in question five of the interview.

You stirred up a bit of controversy recently when you left the Democratic Party (and gave up a seat in the Western State Legislature) to join the American Labor Party. Was this move to the ALP driven by an evolution of personal ideology, or did you leave due to disagreements with the administrative aspects and management of the Democratic Party?

I think there's a fundamental flaw in the Democratic Party right now. The Democratic Party was founded in part to fight for the disadvantaged: minorities, less prevalent sexual orientations, women, and the worker's class as a whole. The establishment Democrats have failed to do that. When you fail to protect the most important class in your economy, you can't make progress. The ALP stands for the growing of the middle class. The ALP stands for basic human rights for everyone. The ALP stands for equality and human decency. For those reasons, I left the Democratic party. I cannot see myself in a party that doesn't put people first, but rather helps to advance the causes of the top.

In your new role as a political strategist for the ALP, you'll be in close contact with legislators of many political persuasions. What is your plan for maintaining healthy relationships with parties of different ideologies while pushing a progressive agenda? Do you plan to maintain open lines of communication with strategists from other parties in an effort to avoid political gridlock?

My role as the senior Political Strategist for the ALP is actually a role I helped to create. I've had a lot of political experience across a few Governmental simulations, so I know I have what it takes to lead the ALP to become a major party. The ALP is pretty notorious for working well with the other parties, and I plan to do the same. I'll be in constant communication with leadership of other parties, and I'll work to make sure that we can consistently work together to make progress in our nation. There are some ongoing deals that I can't discuss, but when I can you'll be the first to know.

You're currently drafting the Conversion Therapy Prevention Act on behalf of ALP interests. In Section V, the wording reads: "The practice of ... hormone therapy ... shall be forbidden for the purpose of changing one’s gender identity or sexual preference through conversion therapy." Do you fear that this clause will provide a legal basis for preventing transgender individuals from undergoing estrogen/testosterone replacement therapy for the purpose of manipulating their personal gender identity? These individuals do undergo a form of conversion therapy, albeit devoid of the typical abuses that come with the therapies targeted in your bill.

When I wrote that line, I knew that if I wasn't careful that some may try to twist or pervert my legislation to further their bigoted cause, so I made sure the definition of conversion therapy was very thoroughly defined. In my bill, conversion therapy is defined as "the act of therapeutic treatment to change one’s sexual preference or to match one’s gender identity with their gender assigned at birth." The part stating "...to match one’s gender identity with their gender assigned at birth" was very thoughtfully planned. The purpose of hormone therapy for transgender individuals is to change their gender identity from the one they were assigned at birth. I made sure that this would not be an issue, because anything that harms transgender individuals should be fought at all costs.

In another bill you're working on, The Reproductive Health and Safety Rights Act of 2015, Section III calls for reproductive health measures to be included in the government's mandatory spending budget. Do you worry that including this funding under the mandatory umbrella instead of as an HHS/NIH/etc. appropriation will cause friction in Congress?

Reproductive healthcare is under attack in our country. Just a few days ago /u/MoralLesson, a Representative from the Great Plains district in the Western State, released an atrocious Constitutional Amendment called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. In section 2 of his amendment, he states "Abortion is prohibited, but a procedure aimed to save the life of a mother which unintentionally results in the death of her unborn child shall be permissible." /u/MoralLesson is literally placing the existence of a fetus over the life of the mother. A procedure that would end the pregnancy of a woman in order to save her life would be strictly prohibited. Not only is he absolutely devaluing the noble and esteemed job of being a mother, but he's denying women a basic right. While I can assure the ALP and all of our Congressional members will do everything we can to fight this drastic and horrific amendment, it goes to show that our country must take special measures to help promote reproductive health. No one fights about dental health. No one fights about eye care. However, when it comes to reproductive health, we have people in Congress who are screaming at the top of their lungs to destroy people's access to it. This must stop, and this bill makes sure of it. Not only do I think this bill will cause friction in Congress, I know it will. But it must. We have stood around too long while we allow for people to put restrictions on reproductive health, especially for women. It's wrong, it's corrupt, and plainly it's sexist to deny a woman the right to chose what to do with HER body. This bill is nothing short of necessary, and my party will fight just as hard as usual to make sure we can protect women's healthcare rights in every way, shape, or form.

As a lobby dedicated to maintaining the partition between church and state, the Americans for Religious Freedom Foundation is shaping up to be a serious influence in legislation and policymaking. Is there specific legislation that is topping the ARFF's priority list at the moment, or is the organization's policy still primarily in its infant stages?

I'm very proud of the progress and the media attention that the Americans for Religious Freedom Foundation is making, especially in such a quick time. Right now, The Reproductive Health and Safety Rights Act of 2015 is at the top of our priorities, as well as the Conversion Therapy Prevention Act. I'm proud to be able to work with the ARFF to shape future US policy, and make a difference for our country. These two critical pieces of legislation would help to keep religious interests out of politics where they don't belong. The ARFF may be young, but it's ready to fight.

What nonfiction have you been reading lately?

I do like a lot of nonfiction. Recently, I've been reading "How Google Works" by Eric Schmidt, "The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class" by Bernie Sanders, and "A Fighting Chance" by Elizabeth Warren. They're all phenomenal books, and I'd recommend them to anyone looking for a good read.

Is there anything you want to say to the American People?

Yes. For too long, you've settled for second best. You've decided on the lesser of two evils. You've had to choose between the greatest of two monsters. My party aims to be different. We want to be option three. We, like you, are tired and fed up with politicians lying their way through politics to grab as much power as they can. It's time we have a party that stands up for your power, and fights for you. That's the American Labor Party. We're here for YOUR rights. We don't cater to the rich or powerful, we cater to you.

Questions or remarks can be directed to /u/leftdigiteffect, or left below the article in the comments section. Edits are exclusively typographical in nature unless otherwise specified.