Allow Political Parties in New Game

[Phoenix]

Should we allow political parties in the new game? You should know by now that I think that the Abstain option is useless but I will enclude it anyway.

I am aware that this has been brought up somewhere else but I cannot find it.

 

[Shaitan]

[mod voice]Note that this is an informational poll as it did not have a preceding discussion[/mod voice]

Parties have shown to be an incredibly disruptive force in the Demo games where it is used. We have been repeatedly warned against allowing parties by the people who suffered with them in the Civ2 Demo game on this site and in the current Demo game on Apolyton.

We have no need for parties as our Citizen Groups already encompass the positive aspects of parties without the negative ones.

 

[disorganizer]

I second Shaitan, as parties will here as well as in real life disable the citizens expression of free will. There will always be tendencies to vote for the party instead of for independant people for example.
A party system can well destroy the whole fun of a demogame.

 

[Zarn]

I say no to parties (political ones not the fun ones). This is suppose to be fun, not frustrating.

 

[donsig]

It is already frustrating.

 

[Richard III]

What? A disruptive force? Omigod, conflict!!! We can't have that!! It might make things, uh, interesting!

Anyone who is tired of the sham democracy can join the small group of hardy Aztecs preparing for a CivTheocracy game. Nobody whining about conflict there. If the Chief Speaker gets mad, someone will get sacrificed.

Golly, a civ demo game with the features of a civ. That's almost as crazy as a civ demo game with freedom of association or politics.

R.III

 

[Toasty]

Three Cheers for Richard!

Can't wait for that TheoGame to start...

 

[Falcon02]

Heck NO!!

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

Why not have fake ones, since we are going to be running an rpg at the same time. In a roleplay sense is what i mean to be more specific. No way i would want it in the real game but in the rpg sure why not, they just wouldn't have the power that a political party does have. In a sense we already have lobbyists groups (ie the citizen groups). Just let the political parties be part of the rpg. Besides if it gets too bad in the rpg we can always change it, like we've done with the game over the months. I voted no tho just because of the stuff going on @ poly.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
Why not have fake ones, since we are going to be running an rpg at the same time. In a roleplay sense is what i mean to be more specific. No way i would want it in the real game but in the rpg sure why not, they just wouldn't have the power that a political party does have. In a sense we already have lobbyists groups (ie the citizen groups). Just let the political parties be part of the rpg. Besides if it gets too bad in the rpg we can always change it, like we've done with the game over the months. I voted no tho just because of the stuff going on @ poly.

That would be treading a very thin line. The game would be overcome with endless PIs.

 

[Danke]

If this were an actual representational government, parties might (maybe) make sense. However, since every citizen is by definition a lawmaker, parties make no sense at all as the point of parties is to allow those with no direct voice the opportunity to elect a slate of representatives who are most likely to enact their will.

Votin' no.

 

[Shaitan]

Excellent point, Danke.

 

[Phoenix]

OK. I didn't realise that they had caused so much trouble in the previous Demo Game (I didn't know that we had ever tried them). However what about having some key advisors for the president other than the other leaders - a presidential advisory board that has no real power but simply voises their opinion and that of the president. We could vote for them and there could be about 5.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Phoenix
OK. I didn't realise that they had caused so much trouble in the previous Demo Game (I didn't know that we had ever tried them). However what about having some key advisors for the president other than the other leaders - a presidential advisory board that has no real power but simply voises their opinion and that of the president. We could vote for them and there could be about 5.

This role is fulfilled by all citizens who are willing.

 

[Shaitan]

Chieftess started setting up something like this but it never got developed. Check in the Presidential thread, Term 4 for the reference. It had fairly good support as an idea from the community. Perhaps you can revive it.

 

[donsig]

I am aware of the dangers of political parties but we've pretty much already been together for a while now so there's a chance we may not suffer the same agonies as they did in the Civ 2 demo game.

I am inclined to give it a try simply because we don not have any division in the demo game. I've suggested a few times that we make turn chats optional. If we do then that would become a major issue in the presidential campaign. Having parties that put out specific platforms on issues might help us to actually find the elusive *will of the people*.

 

[Cyc]

If you party-believers want a fair representation of what a division of our population, by means of a political standing, can do for us, just take a look at the German/Norwegian threads when they inadverntly brushed up against one another. Sure the problem was resolved, but political issues on how to run the Government will not be put aside so easily.

 

[chiefpaco]

Because I wish to play in a co-operative game where we decide our course collectively. I definitely do not wish to see an advesarial system set up to criticize each other. I'd also not like to alienate the members of the (inevitably) smaller parties.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Because I wish to play in a co-operative game where we decide our course collectively. I definitely do not wish to see an advesarial system set up to criticize each other. I'd also not like to alienate the members of the (inevitably) smaller parties.

So you don't want a civdemo game, then, you want a civcoll game or a civcons game.

It's time people made the distinction.

R.III

 

[disorganizer]

hmmm. what do you talk about?
civcoll? civcons?

well, in fact early democracies (this is what we try to implement here) did not have any parties. they well had lobbyism, but definitely no parties.
parties are only for citizens not wanting to go to a direct discussion or poll, but this is the sense of the game.
(otherwise we could well elect the parties and then just let them play by themselves for a month and just watch the result)

maybe the civ-party-mongers should start a
civ3-party game
or a
civ3-representative game

as imho representative systems are definitely not democratic (which fits for most of the current democracies in real live too). the only part being democratic there is the election itselv, not the government.