Why Political Parties?

[minos]

Just a question, why are we focused on political parties?

I seem to see the beginnings of the horror of my country: partisan politics. Living in the USA, I see the constant bickering between the Republicans and Democrats and think how did we ever let this happen? Why do we let two groups of people make all of our decisions. And it is mostly the leaders making the decisions. Yikes! I have never understaood this policy and it scares me in many ways. This essentially limits our democracy to a mere two small groups.

I understand the want to form a group in order to push a common belief, but I already see that there is the foundation for the two party system and possibly in the future we'll have constant bickering over every decision later on by the DIA and the UFC or their ancestors. Do we, as citizens of Apolytonia, really want partisan politics to hijack our democracy.

As for what to do about it, I don't have any proposals and I welcome any lambasting arguments anyone may have in favor of the two party system specifically and really the party system in general since this is both an in-game concern and larger world issue for me.

[notyoueither]

Actually... the parties largely cancel each other out with votes, leaving the non-aligned to decide the issues.

/Edit. Oh man, my spelgni is getngi worse.

[Jon Shafer]

The creation of parties is a natural progression... whether in a real democracy or a simulated one. People who share similar ideals naturally group themselves together, and as their numbers grow, so does their power. Other groups with other agendas form, and so their influence does as well. Eventually, as their power grows, they compete over issues, and usher in their candidates to positions of power. That's just how things work. Those who wish to remain independent find themselves in a vast minority who fail to foster the support of a large group of voters, as party candidates can.

[ChaingKaiShek]

Democracy is truely the most inefficient forms of government. So bring on the political parties. It adds fun to the whole process and helps add to the 'air' of having a political siumlation.

The myth of the people having power is just that. Sure you can vote for people whom you think will express your wants and desires to the rest of the government, but in reality they really just express what THEY want. There is no rule by the masses, a select few have/will/and will always control...everything Sure, anyone, in theory can become a politician. But do you commonly see joe-schmoe getting elected to a major party?

I think not, infact 'common' people rarely hold positions of 'power' beyond the civic circle, and even then it tends to be WEALTHY people whom are elected.

There are always exceptions, of course.

So the parties are needed, so the masses can feel what it must be like to experience the 'rush' of politics.

Of course we could always go for plan alpha. Suspend the rights of the masses, disband the minor party and swear in Trip as Ruler for Life

Eh well, something like that.

Chaing

[Spiffor]

Progression towards a 2 party system was pretty natural : a bunch of small (single-perso, who didn't appeal to the masses) parties were founded at the beginning of the game. They progressively merged withthe most appealing parties, in order to come to power and apply their agenda.

I'd like to see a third party, to bring some fresh blood. However, game-wise, the main debate is between war and peace, and this debate is upheld by both parties (UFC being warmongers, DIA being builders, to put it simply)

When we progress in the game, and when we'll roleplay enough to consider things as ethics and well-being of the population as essential matters, maybe a third party (communist ?) will seriously arise. As long as the debate is centred around the game itself, the duopole is enough.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Spiffor
this debate is upheld by both parties (UFC being warmongers, DIA being builders, to put it simply)

WAY simply -- especially since at this point in the game (as both parties essentially agree), warmaking is a form of building.
Still, the distinction points to the virtue of parties in our situation. The DIA vs. UFC debates amount to a thrashing out of basic strategic issues: what should we prioritize, how should we grow, what kind of civ should we be.
In other words, party politics = civIII embodied.
(Plus, the personalities become entertaining. Trust me, we grow on you. )