CE2's 1788 election

[ConservativeElector2]

So it begins. It's 1788 and the fog is still around this young nation. However, we can hear a few birds cheering the end of the fall and the trumpets of liberty playing already loudly in the background.

Let us determine whether this RP can work or not by heading to our first vote. I think the last 20 hours were enough to see whether you want to submit your canidacy or not and therefore we can safely head into our first election.

Let me start with explaining a few things first. I have decided to scrap the part of additional candidates for now. With nine candidates we have more than enough at this point. 

Secondly, I'll run John Adams just for fun. John Jay (Timur) has dropped out. The ballot order is done by the time your candidacy was submitted.

Thirdly, I have thought about giving you all TWO votes for more fun and an accurate VP allocation (please notify about voting errors, otherwise your vote won't count if you select three or even more people).

Remember the election winner will get the opportunity to submit a cabinet for all positions available in 1788/89 and you will also be able to name a full slate of six (!) inaugural Supreme Court justices afterwards. 

Lastly, the two congressional votes will be just for fun with no real impact.

We need every vote so please do us a favor and vote for two candidates even if you don't plan to jump in for 1792 or later.

Happy voting y'all!

@Beetlejuice @Cal @Cenzonico @DakotaHale @Dobs @Patine @Edouard @Fbarbarossa @Hestia @jnewt @JohnGRobertsJr @Kitten @Magnus Rex @Mishfox @MrPotatoTed @pilight @Pringles @Rezi @Rodja @Sean F Kennedy @The Blood @Timur @vcczar @WVProgressive @Zenobiyl

 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I hate to do this, but, yes, pedantic note on labelling. From all I can gather, the Anti-Federalist and Federalist labels and proto-parties did not exist until 1792-1794. No one ran on a partisan label or identity of any sort in the 1788 House elections, and, of course, there was no popular election for Senators. The Pro-Administration and Anti-Administration caucuses (proto-Federalists and proto-Anti-Federalists, respectively) didn't begin to appear until the second session of the First Congress and after the inauguration of Washington. I apologize, but just a pedantic labelling note. Your partisan development is quite ahead of itself. 😉 

Yeah, initially I wanted to attach a label to each candidate as well, but that seemed more difficult, so I scraped that for now. Later that will become more clear of course. 

[Zenobiyl]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I hate to do this, but, yes, pedantic note on labelling. From all I can gather, the Anti-Federalist and Federalist labels and proto-parties did not exist until 1792-1794. No one ran on a partisan label or identity of any sort in the 1788 House elections, and, of course, there was no popular election for Senators. The Pro-Administration and Anti-Administration caucuses (proto-Federalists and proto-Anti-Federalists, respectively) didn't begin to appear until the second session of the First Congress and after the inauguration of Washington. I apologize, but just a pedantic labelling note. Your partisan development is quite ahead of itself. 😉 

In a sense there is no partisan divide in this RP, since the federalists are so utterly dominant. The country is basically one party now.

[Pringles]

Stop the Federalist/Abolitionist/Cringe Lord takeover. VOTE ANTI FEDERALIST!!!!

[Pringles]

Just now, Patine said:

You really should get a prescription for a nerve reflex medication. All this cringing is awfully unhealthy, and a neurologist should be informed. 😛

I do have a prescription. It's called seeing the Anti Federalists win. 😛 

[Sean F Kennedy]

I thought I marked down Washington too my bad @ConservativeElector2

[ConservativeElector2]

Since the @themiddlepolitical has joined us now, I'll tag him separately.

[MrPotatoTed]

49 minutes ago, Patine said:

I hate to do this, but, yes, pedantic note on labelling. From all I can gather, the Anti-Federalist and Federalist labels and proto-parties did not exist until 1792-1794. No one ran on a partisan label or identity of any sort in the 1788 House elections, and, of course, there was no popular election for Senators. The Pro-Administration and Anti-Administration caucuses (proto-Federalists and proto-Anti-Federalists, respectively) didn't begin to appear until the second session of the First Congress and after the inauguration of Washington. I apologize, but just a pedantic labelling note. Your partisan development is quite ahead of itself. 😉 

You don't hate to do this. ;c)

[ConservativeElector2]

1 minute ago, Sean F Kennedy said:

I thought I marked down Washington too my bad @ConservativeElector2

So you voted just for one candidate?

[ConservativeElector2]

Just now, Patine said:

@Wiwhas also returned, as of earlier today.

Great, thanks for letting us know. I'll alter the master tag for 1792 accordingly.

By the way, do you think you'll be able to vote in our polls if not, I can delete you from the master tag for this game.

[ConservativeElector2]

4 minutes ago, Sean F Kennedy said:

I thought I marked down Washington too my bad @ConservativeElector2

I don't see a vote from you yet, so you should be able to vote for him (if that's the problem)

[ConservativeElector2]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Like with @vcczar's polls, it will be determined on a poll-by-poll basis. I'll be honest with you up front.

Ok with that, I'll leave in the master tag and you can decide for each poll separately.

[Dobs]

No love for Amos Singletary????

[Dobs]

Just now, Patine said:

Sorry, who?

Precisely!

[Sean F Kennedy]

25 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

So you voted just for one candidate?

Correct only my Hamilton vote went through 

[ConservativeElector2]

15 minutes ago, Sean F Kennedy said:

Correct only my Hamilton vote went through 

Ok no problem

[themiddlepolitical]

GW and J.A I would actually vote Feds in the Senate, and Anti-Feds in the house. I think having a split congress is good for this time in history.

[ConservativeElector2]

17 hours ago, themiddlepolitical said:

GW and J.A I would actually vote Feds in the Senate, and Anti-Feds in the house. I think having a split congress is good for this time in history.

That's good actually. Brings more dynamic

[Zenobiyl]

@ConservativeElector2Alexander Hamilton remembers he is sadly too young to run for president. How forgetful of him 😐. In light of this realization Hamilton ends his bid for president and yields the office to Thomas Jefferson. While the two have fought on many fronts, Hamilton concedes that at least Jefferson has beliefs.

[ConservativeElector2]

Hereby I declare George Washington @MrPotatoTed to the first President of the United States. (I just noticed I called you still Actinguy in the post lol). President Washington please name your first cabinet and your first six Supreme Court justices. I believe you need a State, Treasury, War Secy and a Attorney General.

Thomas Jefferson @Pringles is declared to be the nation's first Vice President  (as we found out Hamilton was an illegitimate candidate due to being too young to run for President)

 

 

[ConservativeElector2]

Thanks to all those who have participated. See you in 1792 😛 

[MrPotatoTed]

10 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Hereby I declare George Washington @MrPotatoTed to the first President of the United States. (I just noticed I called you still Actinguy in the post lol). President Washington please name your first cabinet and your first six Supreme Court justices. I believe you need a State, Treasury, War Secy and a Attorney General.

Thomas Jefferson @Pringles is declared to be the nation's first Vice President  (as we found out Hamilton was an illegitimate candidate due to being too young to run for President)

 

 

Is it just anyone I can think of from that era for cabinet and justices?  I’ll start putting together a list.

[Zenobiyl]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Is it just anyone I can think of from that era for cabinet and justices?  I’ll start putting together a list.

Sec of Treasury plz 🥺

[ConservativeElector2]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

Is it just anyone I can think of from that era for cabinet and justices?  I’ll start putting together a list.

Yeah, the plan is to name people who could have hold that post in RL as well. So the only requirements are basically that they were alive in 1789. Of course some expertise should be taken into account as well.

I am not entirely sure how the confirmation will work. Either with a die roll, Let's say with a 10 % chance of not being confirmed (Maybe higher if no expertise in that field) or a forum vote. But the 2nd option might slow things down.

[Zenobiyl]

5 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Yeah, the plan is to name people who could have hold that post in RL as well. So the only requirements are basically that they were alive in 1789. Of course some expertise should be taken into account as well.

I am not entirely sure how the confirmation will work. Either with a die roll, Let's say with a 10 % chance of not being confirmed (Maybe higher if no expertise in that field) or a forum vote. But the 2nd option might slow things down.

Forum vote makes the most sense, even if it would slow things down 😕