FRANKLINSBURGH- A new poll shows what could have been of Freedemian politics if Amendment 13 under President Sean Bond hadn’t banned them. The poll compared platforms from today’s voters to those of yesterday’s parties.
Analyst Annabelle Sarahson, who has a Master’s in Political Science, says she believes from the data that modern Freedemian politics would be dominated by three major parties if not for Amendment 13.
“It seems like there would be three major parties today if they weren’t banned. I’d say that there would be the Freedemian Centrist Party, the Freedemian Party, and a newer “Liberal Party” to account for the leftward shift we’ve seen recently in our nation. We saw some of what I mean with the Liberal Party with PLAG, the People’s Liberal Activist Group, when it was found to be an implied political party. The Conservative Party likely would have collapsed into the Freedemian Centrist Party due to their sharing of many views.”
In 2016, Freedemians as a whole agree on a lot of things. More than 90% of Freedemians are pacifists. Most identify as Christians. Most approve of nudism/naturism, public nudity protections and barechested equality provisions. Most are supportive of medical marijuana but against legalizing recreational marijuana. Most see the importance of going green. Most see the importance of government programs. Most want the country to move away from auto travel in exchange for public transit.
However, the details make all the difference.
Sarahson says that the political battles seen today would align most with a scenario with the Freedemian Party versus the Freedemian Centrist Party, with influence from the “Liberal Party” pushing further left.
“Both the Freedemian Party and the Freedemian Centrists would agree on medical marijuana, while the Liberal Party would be pushing for total legalization. Likewise, both the Freedemian Party and the Freedemian Centrists would support nudist rights and barechested equality, but only the Liberal Party would be fighting for a complete ban of dress codes and clothing requirements. Both the Freedemian Party and the Freedemian Centrists would support some censorship when it came to words and things that could be seen as offensive, but the Liberal Party would want no censorship at all. The Liberal Party wouldn’t be a big player in elections, but they would help influence policy. We basically see the same thing today minus the parties- most centrist Freedemians agree on things and dominate politics, but other groups help push things a bit further left.”
“The differences between the Freedemian Party and the Freedemian Centrist Party are that Freedemian Party members believe strongly in the use of federal power, federal funding, and global alliances and connections. The Freedemian Centrist Party would only approve of use of federal power or funding when needed, and would disapprove of global alliances for concern of being dragged into conflicts. We see this very exchange before us today, as groups debate whether federal power is reaching too far with the Graham City Crisis, or whether ties with Woolonia open us up to getting dragged into a conflict. Smaller debates over priorities (transportation, healthcare, going green, etc) also fall along these lines.”
“Having a strong federal government over the smaller governments is actually an idea the Freedemian Party would have taken from Doofism and the Tri-State Party where the federal government retains all power over local government.”
“The Conservative Party, or the remnants of it, would not be an active player, but would remain a huge part of the foreign policy aspects of the Freedemian and Freedemian Centrist Parties. Pacifism and minimal alliances was originally a Conservative Party stance, as was responsible spending. These would almost certainly have become large parts of the Freedemian Centrist Party platform.”
“The data collected shows that about 53% of Freedemians have beliefs that line up with the Freedemian Centrist Party’s platforms. It appears that if parties still existed, the Freedemian Centrists would dominate politics. Many others, about 40%, would be more Freedemian Party, including President Angela Rosenthal.”
“But it is interesting to see how many stances nearly universally accepted now didn’t come until recently. While naturism and nudism were always accepted, as was barechested equality, universal protection under the law for public nudity didn’t come until President Kenderson. At the time Kenderson made his executive order, it was hugely controversial, and many were shocked at the idea of allowing people to go naked in public anywhere. Now, with Amendment 30, public nudity is literally protected under our constitution.”
“I honestly don’t think these shifts would have been as possible if political parties would have remained in power. None of the remaining major parties back in 1955 (Freedemian, Freedemian Centrists, Conservative) would have embraced something as extreme as legalizing all public nudity. Even the left leaning Freedemian Party at the time just wanted to get rid of all “indecent exposure” laws. The Freedemian Centrist Party was for allowing nudity at all parks and beaches, but never embraced public nudity in public places like theaters, stores, restaurants, or schools. The Conservative Party seemed to think naturism and nudism were fine, but should be isolated to beaches, parks, and private backyards. Today, almost all Freedemians support Amendment 30, protecting all public nudity and non-sexual exposure and protecting the right to expression through the choice to go naked, as long as it’s not linked to a lewd act. The policy being enforced nationwide is “indecent behavior”, where indecent actions, not nudity or exposure, are punishable by law.”
“Having political parties banned has made it possible for individual politicians and individual citizens to have their own stances on issues, without being confined to a party platform. Someone may agree with some stances but disagree with others that normally would be associated together because they aren’t confined to a set of ideas. Every voter is an independent free to make their own political choices, which I believe helped Freedemia thrive.”
“I do believe banning political parties under Amendment 13 was the right decision. I’m glad President Sean Bond signed it all those years ago. However, it is interesting to see what Freedemian politics might have looked like if parties still existed.”
While political parties aren’t coming back anytime soon, if ever, the influence they had is still greatly affecting Freedemian politics today. However, the lack of parties has also had a large impact, allowing voters and politicians to have more diverse stances on different hot topics.