Why a two Party Government is Detrimental to Apolytonia.

[kring]

I see the division, and so does anyone else that looks for it. When someone is put down because of their party, or their party is, then there is division.

I see some of the DIA and UFC both putting down each other. I would request we stop bashing the parties, and I am not talking about the beginning post here, either. I support having either no parties or more parties. Yet, when someone tries to start a new party, they get ridiculed for doing so. Several attempts have been made. I am glad more IND are running.

I can think of one extreme case without even trying. Many of his posts have put downs of the other party. And I don't even read most of the campaign/election posts. I vote for the person, based on their posts in other areas, or what they say during chats/turnchats.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


I do not acknowledge your so-called bill of rights. It is pointless, and most posters see it so. The prove is, that at this point only 39 of far over 200 people have voted (look at the elections, where voted more than 100 people). Geez, I attracted more voters with the question, if we should open embassies. Hence, the vast majority is not interested in your bill of rights, it's pretty unpopular. If you are unable to attract more voters with your stuff, I don't recommend you to call it "official", even if it got 100% approval.

If you posted another "official amendment" and would be the only voter, that would make a 100% approval.

But would it be legal? I say no.

Yeah ... what he said.

[Jon Shafer]

Another good issue brought up. How many people make an 'official' poll really 'official'? Maybe we should set up a thread for this issue.

[GodKing]

Eik Gads men. How nuts is this all getting. Don't worry about what people are calling themselves. It don't mean nuthin.

[GePap]

Originally posted by GodKing
Eik Gads men. How nuts is this all getting. Don't worry about what people are calling themselves. It don't mean nuthin.

Thank you. Parites in this game are almost simply a sort of roleplaying. BUt even if anyone thinks here they are more than that, we need to be honest:

In all sorts political there are factions, even probably in the CivFanatics game. Political parties are simply one expression of factionalism, one of the least violent an desructive out there. We do have general disagreements about which path should lead to the end: I mean, we havent even begun to discuss the endgame, or which type of victory, diplomatic, space, cultural, dominance, or total conquest, we want to head for. That wil cause real devides, I think. To try to ban parties, either from the start or now simply drives underground a basic piece of politics.

[Inverse Icarus]

a libertarian.
a pole

i dont know how to feel!

[ThePlagueRat]

What GePap says is true... Factioning appear in most organizations.
As a matter of fact(ioning),
I belong to the culture-faction of DIA, because The Culture Party, TCP, merged into the DIA by some reason.
Well, I just have to remember that I must vote what I,
myself believe. Not what the DIA representatives tell me!

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


I do not acknowledge your so-called bill of rights. It is pointless, and most posters see it so. The prove is, that at this point only 39 of far over 200 people have voted (look at the elections, where voted more than 100 people). Geez, I attracted more voters with the question, if we should open embassies. Hence, the vast majority is not interested in your bill of rights, it's pretty unpopular. If you are unable to attract more voters with your stuff, I don't recommend you to call it "official", even if it got 100% approval.

If you posted another "official amendment" and would be the only voter, that would make a 100% approval.

But would it be legal? I say no.

This is what the court must decide.

I am going to disagree with Sir Ralph and say that if he was the only voter and his poll fit all the standards then yes it would be legal. Sure not many people said yes but no one cared enough to say no.
Should we get better standards? Probably.

What we need is a way to remove people who are not active from the game. We need standards to determine who is active in the game and which votes count.

[Epistax]

No offense to the original poster, but could we please let this topic die off?

We wont get any legislation that mentions party politics
We wont ever ban them
For now, they aren't being abused, and I don't think they will be

Things are good

[Libertarian2004]

Let the topic die off?

Just because things are not messed up now doesnt mean they wont be ever.

I do not know why people are taking offence to this topic. It was just my personal call for the creation of more political parties and non-political justices. As i have stated before both parties are working together right now with minimal partisanship. That does mean everything will always be hunky dory.

It just disturbs me that there are no other parties.

[Epistax]

Explained further:

We are about to declare war on America. Which thread has talks about this? Where are our discussions of which way to expand, what units to put on a gally, where to send it, etc?

Everything is buried by governmental issues and polls. Other things such as this give us zero breathing room for the game itself.

This particular debate might seem popular at the moment, but it wont lead us anywhere, as it isn't a problem yet. I frankly don't see it as a pressing issue since there is no problem, and even if we were 100% sure of a future problem, there is nothing we can now do about it.

*sigh* You can keep trying, and we can start more threads and more threads about this, or we can play the game.


Epistax has left the thread.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Lib - just to support this thread for a moment (it seems that it is the bashing thread for the week ), your points in the first post are legitimate concerns and many have brought such issues up for debate before, However, as you admit, no problems have been seen to have arisen as of yet, and from what I can see, the party politics have actually died somewhat in the forum. I haven't looked at either party thread for ages, but in no other thread (the important ones )have I seen it become a competition between parties as of late.

It would be best if there were multiple parties with agenda ranging across the political spectrum, but in Rl it is nearly impossible to find countries with such representations. In fact, we DID seem to have a decent number of small parties, until for some reason when I was away a week BANG! they had all coalesced into the UFC. I am still a little confused how that happened. However, after a few weeks of insult-hurling across party lines, I don't think I could tell you the names of more than 5 posters in any party at all. And I don't believe the average participant could either unless the parties were signposted next to the poster's name at the top of an election thread! In essence, party politics seem to have faded, in the face of people getting tired with them, and a completely unorganized groundswell of support against such ideas earlier on, featuring not just independents, but members from both parties as well.

These people, as well as myself, see parties as merely a bit of fun - it's a comforting thing somehow to be a member of a group rather than face the sometimes hostile forum with no more backup than yourself. Some are proud of their party membership, some join because they like to know which posters have their outlook on issues, and maybe there are some who are in just to bring the whole edifice crashing down around them.

So, to conclude, perhaps we should share your concerns, Lib, but there is less evidence now than ever before in this forum's history for the detrimental effect of party politics. For this reason, and the fact that there will be some still getting a kick out of the presence of parties, we should not attempt to ban them, just stay vigilant as you are to any possibility that parties become more burden than bonus. In this way I applaud your post for bringin this to our attention again, and I am glad to see you do not even seriously consider the idea of banning them - and thus killing some of the fun.

[Libertarian2004]

Yeah pehaps i should be focusing my efforts elsewhere. Pointing our problems with our system's future seems to be fairly unpopular.

Perhaps ill start my own political party since my bid as a justice didnt pan out.

[Spiffor]

When we achieve a new level of roleplaying (with ethics and such), then we can have more parties, based on the party allegiance. But something isn't near to happen, until we ecome a stable power.

Another thing to help the emergence of parties is to officially require a candidate to have a 50% majority to win, even if there are more than 2 candidates (I don't think it's official now), with a runoff poll among the 2 candidates who had the most votes.
I'll take a RL example : there is a striking difference between France and Britiain about this. In Britain, there is only one round for the elections, and when you vote, your vote MUST count, and you have to vote for either tories or labour. In France, there is a runoff election when the candidate didn't get 50% (every presidential election). In Britain, you have 2 major parties and a small middle-party. In France, there are no major parties (the best candidate got 20% votes at the first round of last election), and several middle-sized ones.
The way elections are held could help to get more diversity to the political landscape.