Announcement

**Jon Shafer** · July 13, 2002, 01:58

I feel that people will vote their conscience, at least as far as official elections. I don't think it's as much of a problem as you see it to be. It's mostly for fun, and for people to think they're important.

**Epistax** · July 13, 2002, 02:00

If you check, not all the candidates have parties. IND means independent. While several people have pretended to make an independent party, we laughed at them. We think by now they know why.

Not only that, but at least one independent is winning. I am independent, and I plan on seeking some sort of position somewhere eventually.

It's up to the people in the political parties to realize their political party pretty much means nothing but an organization where people loosely share the same ideals, but that doesn't say that for a certain position you wouldn't rather someone of a different party.

I just hope we don't fall into a two party system, but I think we are smarter than that.

**Ninot** · July 13, 2002, 02:00

Party politics have become a factor, true.. but not as strong as you think.

Many UFC candidates (and myself) have declared themselves neutral voters.

I'll say right now that I have voted for some UFC candidates in this election.

I joined a party because i have likewise thoughts, not because i wanted more votes, or an easier way to vote. Its just easier than having 300 indepedants all shouting ideas.. so much easier to pop in and go "hey, DIA rules!"

Party politics ARE evil, but not so much here as you think.

**Nubclear** · July 13, 2002, 02:00

Re: something that needs to be abolished

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Hello

This is the first time I've been in the Democracy Game forum in almost a month. You see, after I lost to civman in the election for Finance Minister, I left being a sore loser. I have finally come back, and I have noticed a problem of our government that has carried over into this one. The party system.

Today in our government, the party system is not what our founding fathers thought it would be. People nowadays just vote for the candidate of their party. And have you noticed that almost all democrats have the same opinions as other democrats? And the same w/republicans and other parties? People's opinions are based on the party's opinions, not what they believe in. Almost all republican senators agree with Bush on his policies while democrats oppose him? They don't agree with him because they believe in it, it's because he's their party.

This is now a part of the Civ3 Democracy Game. All the candidates have parties, and people of that party will vote for them. Not because they believe he or she is best fit for that position but he is their party. Please help me in the war to abolish a fault in this great game.

John

There is one fatal error in this. Parties cannot be apolished, no matter what you do. People with common interests will always unite.

People who are builders will most likely join the DIA because the DIA believes in a building strategy. Meanwhile people who are (for lack of a better word) warmongers willl join the UFC most likely, as they place a heavier emphasis on military.

Even if you 'abolish' parties, people will still have their loyalties. They will still discuss with party memberes about party ideals. They will still unite with those whom they relate to.

So this war to abolish parties cannot be one, because again parties cannot be abolished.

**notyoueither** · July 13, 2002, 02:21

I would say it would be better if people were banned from saying go [insert party name here] from election poll threads. There's gotta be one place the voter should be able to get away from that... stuff. The polling booth is it.

I find it tacky, personally. And I can say that my opinion of the DIA is being effected by how much they are beginning to earn a weasel as a mascot.

**Inverse Icarus** · July 13, 2002, 02:27

Originally posted by notyoueither
I would say it would be better if people were banned from saying go [insert party name here] from election poll threads. There's gotta be one place the voter should be able to get away from that... stuff. The polling booth is it.

I find it tacky, personally. And I can say that my opinion of the DIA is being effected by how much they are beginning to earn a weasel as a mascot.

i concur. parties shouldnt broadcast as much as they do.

**civman2000** · July 13, 2002, 09:51

I'm in the DIA, but I vote for who I think is the best. I do this in RL politics too. However, just as in RL politics I usually end up voting for democrats anyway because I share their belief, I usually vote for the DIA. However, I have voted for 2 independents and 1 UFC member

**Timeline** · July 13, 2002, 12:00

The first party here was the Imperialists. And they dominated.

The DIA was simply created to give people of other faith a strong representation in our government. It was founded to create a balance of power so that no one party would walk over our nation.

I have stated many times, if the UFC would like to negotiate disbandment of its parties then we (the DIA) would do the same.

Somehow, however, I dont think the UFC parties would ever agree to this... and so our nation is left in an exhaustive struggle of party competitiveness.

**Edrix** · July 13, 2002, 12:11

It seems like there are only a few that outright oppose the party they're against. Most party members don't vote in the bloc, and actually vote based on the candidates' platforms and their supposed competence.
And don't forget that a lot of citizens are independent (or completely absent from the game...)

I usually try to ignore the party abbreviations next to a candidate's name, and vote based on campaign information, and I think most citizens do the same. Party politics in the demo game aren't that much of a problem; it's only when some people take it too far that something must be done.

**kring** · July 14, 2002, 03:38

I vote for/against the candidate. I go by what they have said compared to what they have actually done, or said in other venues.

**Proserpine** · July 16, 2002, 13:35

For this reason I formed the Non-Alligned Tendency (NAT), natural successor to STOP. We should work in a democratic & bipartisan way towards ultimate victory, without being stiffled by the straightjacket of so-called "parties".

Others would disagree. That is their right under our Code

**Robber Baron** · July 16, 2002, 14:39

Personally? I love the parties. Not that they structure my voting -- I vote all over the map, actually.
But I belong to one (it's in my sig). Partisanship is fun, it helps organize all you virtual creatures out there, lines you up in my thinking -- not as purely party creatures, but as individual political voices. It fortifies the role playing aspect of the demogame. It creates cohesion among a body politic that is otherwise disembodied and often hard to grasp. Not to mention, it creates great opportunities for soap opera-style intrigue.

**GePap** · July 16, 2002, 17:37

I agree with baron on the issue of parties. I think it adds to the reality of the game: the one thing civ3 left out (and all civ games have left out) is internal politics of class, relegion, so forth that is as central to any cv and state as external politics. How much of any countries history involves internal warring?

If some people don't like parties, ignore them, if some people like them, follow them.
Heck, Why not create two distinct 'relegions' for our little game, just to ADD to the internal politickin? It might be fun......

**Apocalypse** · July 16, 2002, 17:42

I ran heavily on an anti party stance and lost horribly.

I also didn't campaign very though.

Announcement

something that needs to be abolished

something that needs to be abolished

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment