It might be against the law for women and ambiguous people to vote, but said law might no longer be actively enforced. London's government is so corrupt and feeble after all when it comes to basic law and order. Maybe slip the poll watcher twenty pieces of glim and you're in.

A another question is property qualifications. In the late 19th century the vote was limited to property holders and men of substance. To vote you might need to have a certain amount of echoes in the bank or a house.

"She is a known associate of Mister Veils!"

So the Bishop's been revealed to have his campaign funded by devils, has anything been discovered about Sinning Jenny that would threaten her position as the anti-vake radical liberal feminist badass candidate?

"Jenny doesn’t lack for status, and her coalition of nuns and ladies and gentleman of the night campaign on the streets.

Teaspoon wrote:

Why is it less compelling?

The wealthy can look after themselves. That's what being rich means.

It's the difference between a lesser mother terresa and a lesser-and-more-moral french revolution, that's why. One tried to help the poor with only what was given willingly, the other tried to take for the poor what they needed from the rich by force.

It's the difference between a saint and a pragmatist, and if it didn't cut into their effectiveness, i'd prefer the saint every time. as it is... i prefer the contrarian- at least he doesn't masquerade as a saint.
edited by Grenem on 7/5/2016

Grenem wrote:

Teaspoon wrote:

Why is it less compelling?

The wealthy can look after themselves. That's what being rich means.

It's the difference between a lesser mother terresa and a lesser-and-more-moral french revolution, that's why. One tried to help the poor with only what was given willingly, the other tried to take for the poor what they needed from the rich by force.

It's the difference between a saint and a pragmatist, and if it didn't cut into their effectiveness, i'd prefer the saint every time. as it is... i prefer the contrarian- at least he doesn't masquerade as a saint.
edited by Grenem on 7/5/2016

Why should such things be separated, for are they inherently dual in nature? Such are the ideals of the Contrarian, though his stance of right and wrong are most certainly for argument's sake alone. No, there is no reason Jenny could not be both. She has already proven herself a mixture of ideals; a socialite of high class mingling with the downtrodden and poor, a scarlet saint of pleasure and sin that watches over the people of London, even an idealist out for a better London that uses a pragmatic stance on the wealthy to allocate funds for a noble cause. Jenny is many things if not complex, for she is her own spirit rather than an argumentative strawman to be boxed and defined into rigid beliefs. Sinning Jenny is the mayor London deserves! A unique character for a unique city!
edited by Sir Joseph Marlen on 7/5/2016

Emain Ablach wrote:

Charming, lethal, free of the Bazaar's influence, doesn't contradict herself and isn't funded by her enemies. I mean, how can people even hesitate when there is only one serious candidate ? The others are jokes.

Jenny for the win !

It's possible the refusal of Bazaar funds is merely tactical.

It's the difference between a saint and a pragmatist, and if it didn't cut into their effectiveness, i'd prefer the saint every time. as it is... i prefer the contrarian- at least he doesn't masquerade as a saint.
edited by Grenem on 7/5/2016