The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
They can chose members of their own party. If someone is unable to even get membership of the party then they almost certainly do not share the concerns and ideology of the party members in the constituency. The idea of Labour voters getting to vote on a Conservative prospective candidate is utterly ridiculous, which is why US cross voting raises so many eyebrows over here. It has nothing to do with democracy, and a lot to do with sabotaging the other parties chances.
You do not have membership sales drives during nomination periods?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
You do not have membership sales drives during nomination periods?
Dunno. I suppose you could join a party just to vote against or for someone you thought would lose in the general, but I've never heard of it as a strategy. Party membership costs money for one thing IIRC.
What if you 'lean' labour but you don't like the labour politicians/actions/etc? Isn't it your duty to try and make it so that labour's opponent is someone who you could vote for?
JM
Then you'd support a different Labour candidate who you prefered surely? The Labour party for instance is split between New Labour who are kind of social democrats and Old Labour* who are the hardline socialists. There's often internal conflict between the two sides within the party.
* In US terms Old Labour would be nothing short of raging communists.
Dunno. I suppose you could join a party just to vote against or for someone you thought would lose in the general, but I've never heard of it as a strategy. Party membership costs money for one thing IIRC.
Here they cost $5 or $10. Parties use nomination and leadership races to drum up members who may or may not stick, but can be added to mailing/contact lists.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Yeah that probably happens. I've never gotten around to joining my party, so I don't know much about that side of things, but I can't see why they wouldn't.
Additionally, you and we get actual cross-party voting in general elections. I've seen LibDem and Labour supporters planning to vote tactically to block Tory candidates.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Additionally, you and we get actual cross-party voting in general elections. I've seen LibDem and Labour supporters planning to vote tactically to block Tory candidates.
That happens all the time of course.
Then again the two share quite a few positions. It's much more of a 'lesser of two evils' thing.
If it cost money to be in a party, I don't think it would be legal to restrict the vote to party members. It would probably be construed as a poll tax.
If it cost money to be in a party, I don't think it would be legal to restrict the vote to party members. It would probably be construed as a poll tax.
Why? People can vote for whoever they wish in the general election, this is just about voting for parties candidates.
The 24th amendment to our Constitution prohibits a poll tax in primary and general elections.
Fair enough. That doubles up my confusion on why primaries are considered a part of the open democratic process though. Doesn't that just serve to reinforce the two party system?
Fair enough. That doubles up my confusion on why primaries are considered a part of the open democratic process though. Doesn't that just serve to reinforce the two party system?
There are many parts of our election system that came about when the South still was trying to keep black people and poor whites out of the political process. In many jurisdictions, the Democrats were the only political party, and poll taxes on primaries enabled massive disenfranchisement. What you don't understand is that virtually all of these sorts of laws and constitutional interpretations are based on abuse at some time in the past, starting with the abuses of the British* before the revolutionary war, and culminating in the abuses of the South in the civil rights era. Our constitution is based on preventing the bad things that used to happen.
There was a time when party elites got to pick who was in the party. There is a reason we no longer do things that way. Experience has shown it to be a corrupt system.
*EDIT: This is why there are some bizarre things in the constitution, like the third amendment.
Doubt it, I'd almost certainly have heard about it. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I'm having a hard time believing that we Canucks have come up with more vile tactics than the people who politic in the brass-knuckle environment of the Mother Parliament.
That happens all the time of course.
Then again the two share quite a few positions. It's much more of a 'lesser of two evils' thing.
I'm very much sure that I do not regard this as the lesser of two evils. It is an attempt to turn a multi-party system into one that banishes a significant portion of the electorate from prospects of influence in government. One could say it has all the markings of a single-party system where one party has two arms, and those outside never get a significant say.
It is much more vile and pernicious than attempting to influence who should be a candidate in a single constituency, or hand-full, for any given party.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
I'm having a hard time believing that we Canucks have come up with more vile tactics than the people who politic in the brass-knuckle environment of the Mother Parliament.
I'm very much sure that I do not regard this as the lesser of two evils. It is an attempt to turn a multi-party system into one that banishes a significant portion of the electorate from prospects of influence in government. One could say it has all the markings of a single-party system where one party has two arms, and those outside never get a significant say.
It is much more vile and pernicious than attempting to influence who should be a candidate in a single constituency, or hand-full, for any given party.
How can you stop people voting for whoever they want tho? Obviously in a two party system like the US its just not an issue, but as soon as you have a three or more party system this is surely just inevitable? I also don't really see it as vile or penicious, if you are really ideologically opposed to a party but yours has no chance of victory, why wouldn't you vote for a party who shares some of your beliefs instead?
To be honest I dislike it, but purely because it means the lower party will never gain the support it needs to challenge, but I don't have any issues with it on moral grounds. If the second party wins, then a majority of people must want something other than the first party are offering.
Tweet
){ :|:& };:
Comment