(UNofficial poll) Do you want to disolve parties?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by skywalker
Kring -

Actually, the ultimate goal is NOT to win. If it was, we would take the best player and make him play the game for its entire length.

Ummm... -and how exactly would we determine who's "the best player" ?

[Kuciwalker]

Gaurdian -

Who wins the most, etc. The point is that the Democracy part of the game is to add depth to it. Since when have internal politics strengthened a country?

[Timeline]

Looks like a close vote. I asked Ninot to put this one up because I am interested in how people feel on this issue.

I voted yes because I can see the detrimental effect party politics are having here. I do not have answers to the questions about other parties rising up, but I'm sure they will.

The DIA, in my opinion was the most successful political party in any demo game of civ, but still I think it would benefit the masses of people more if we did not judge people and candidates by parties.

Soon, there will be an internal vote among our DIA members to assess their feelings on this matter. If we decide for disbandment, then I would like to negotiate a similar action from all members of the UFC. At that point, both our parties could step down simultaneously.

- Timeline

[MrWhereItsAt]

In that case it would be a noble sacrifice for the good of Apolytonia, Timeline. But there should be NO impediment to those wanting to start such parties in the future, not those who want to continue in the DIA and UFC or whatever.

[Spiffor]

Kring :
I think our ultimate goal here is not to win the game, it's to have fun (agreed, I'd like to win the game too ). Party politics are part of the fun.

But that is not the only reason why we need parties. I acknowledge they're currently near useless, because there is no possible debate : we need war.
But once we become a stable power, there will be a vigorous debate on how to win the game. Not everybody supports a conquest / domination victory, not everybody supports a cultural / spacecship victory.
In this debate, parties will be extremely useful, because they will structurate the debate. Without parties, such an important decision risks to go to government members only (and especially the most noisy among them).

Moreover, when we become a stable power, parties will really mean something during the elections : should we vote for a builder or a warmonger in City Planner position ? Science advisor ? Foreign affairs ? etc. Many posts will be very important, depending on who holds them.
You might say "builders and warmongers can present themselves without belonging to a party". That is right. But without parties, elections could be disorganized enough for warmonggers to win even if they don't get the support of most (or the opposite).
For example, if you have 5 builder candidates and 2 warmonger candidates to an important election (say, city planner), a warmonger could win, even if the sum of builders is more than 50% . With parties, you'll have one builder candidate and one warmonger candidate, and people will get the strategy choice they like the most.

Lastly, don't forget we'll think over ethics at one moment. While the reflection clubs will probably think of different code of ethics, its application in the game will be up to the officials. If a party recognizes itself in an ethics code, it will enforce it when playing. Parties would avoid an "ethical chaos" where each official enforces a different ethics. That would be good for cohesion and roleplaying.

Overall, I clearly see the interest of parties in our direct democracy. That's why I voted a clear NO.

[Robber Baron]

No. No. NO!
What could be less democratic than banning the people's right to organize!
In virtually any representative government on the face of the RL planet, parties form. There's a reason.

[jdjdjd]

As the eastern religion of Taoism teaches us, there are opposing forces in the world that work in harmony and together are needed. Without one, there is no other, and the world is not right. For example, can we know day without night? Is there life without death? Can you know happy if you have never been sad?

Can I be independent, if there are no politcal parties?

[civman2000]

You're absolutely correct. The only argument people have for having political parties is that "they'll come back anyways", or "you can't stop people from organizing". Sorry, that's not a reason to have them, that's WHY they exist.

Of course! BUt it is a reason to not disband the ones we have now because they are strong and they will just come back. Ideally, there would be 5 or so separate, strong, and organized parties with around 10 members each, but:
1. They will not all be organized, and hte ones that are will swallow others that ahave somewhat similar beliefs.
2. Ones with similar beliefs will merge together.

THe only way to stop having a 2 (or possibly 3) party system is the abolish them altogether, which is not worht doing. Dissolving the ones we have now will just create chaos for a week or two while things sort out.

I don't like having 2 parties, buut 2 is better than none or 10 unorganized ones.

[Harovan]

To disband parties by force is neither good nor is it possible. However, in their current form, they don't do any good. Even worse, by restricting their members from voting for candidates of other parties, they put our democracy in question. I think the best way to deal with them is to ignore their existence. I don't give a damn, what party somebody is in. What counts for me, is loyality and competence. Such people can be found in all parties and among the independents.

[Epistax]

Perhaps we can delcare a party to have a monopoly and order it split (this is only half a joke).

If everyone ignored party lines when it came to voting, there would be no problem with it, but these people join organizations to be part of something more. They feel stronger by voting as a unit of people, and thus losing their individuality of thought and reason. The only person that should EVER vote on party lines is the one that agrees with each of the candidates in their field AND believes they will do the best job--- for you do NOT elect someone into position who has your beliefs but cannot act the role *cough* bush *cough*

[civman2000]

Parties may pressure their members, but it is what the members must accept if they want to be in the party. This is no reason to ban parties. The government should not be able to ban parties by force, but if party leaders agree they can dissolve their own party. However, nothing stops the members from re-forming it.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by civman2000
Parties may pressure their members, but it is what the members must accept if they want to be in the party.

Sure, our citizens have the freedom to be unfree.

[Ninot]

Please note: I never said I would keep parties out of this game by choice.

This is merely a poll to see if those among us wish to disband the parties. That does not mean we are outlawing the gatherment of any parties in the present or future, just searching into the facts of how many people dislike the parties that are arround, and wish they weren't around.

Sure, IF the yes side ran away with the votes, there would be some grounds to consider anti-party ammendments. But this is a people's government first and foremost. Therefor, parties will stay if you wish them to. And currently, it very much appears as if Parties will always be a part of this game. With so many No votes, this poll has pretty much answered us.

[Edrix]

But won't most parties fall into the categories of "pacifist" or "warmonger" anyway (with some slight moderation)? I mean, how many other factions could there possibly be?

[Kuciwalker]

Well, this is where my Civ3 Roleplaying Game idea really becomes interesting: parties could actually represent ideas about internal economics (how bananas are allocated, etc.), much like the real world.