AMendment Banning Political Parties

[Immortal]

Obviously the mods want this in the constitution, and a number of posters.

SO where should we put it, what should it say?

What is a political Party?

 

[MSTK]

A formal group of people who0 always vote for the same things

 

[Immortal]

Legally, how can the judiciary differentiate between a political party and a citizen group? Does a political party ban membership in other groups?

 

[Comnenus]

Legally, how can the judiciary differentiate between a political party and a citizen group? Does a political party ban membership in other groups?

I would think several parameters could define a political party.

1. Bans membership in competing parties.
2. Publicly supports a candidate.
3. Requires its members to vote for a particular candidate.

As set up, it seems the groups we have are more like lobbyists (sp?)

 

[Cyc]

I do not see a problem really with Citizen's groups endorsing a Candidate. The main problem with political parties is the block voting. If a Citizen's Group requires it's members to vote a certain way on an issue or for a Candidate, that can be seen as trying to enforce block voting. Also I like Comnenus' #1. If a Citizen's Group banned membership in ANY other group, it should be seen as a political party.

 

[Octavian X]

Obviously, though, citizens would not want to join groups that limited their freedoms in such a way. Kind of makes that list redundant, doesn't it?

But, let me play the role of the devil's advocate for a moment - Why do we want to keep this arachic ban in place? Because of some political infighting that took place ages ago, in a different game? Any disruption we'd run into wouldn't be as bad as anything else we've already seen in the last few DGs. It could almost be argued that such organizations already exist, though not in any formal manner - we all already have a pretty good idea about who and what we support, and those lines have manifested themselves in the past.

 

[Provolution]

I would think several parameters could define a political party.

1. Bans membership in competing parties.
2. Publicly supports a candidate.
3. Requires its members to vote for a particular candidate.

As set up, it seems the groups we have are more like lobbyists (sp?)

Comnenus

I agree on these three

plus: nominates their candidates as a group, not individually and recommends its members to vote for people listed in the membership files, as I have seen in some of the citizen group threads. I tried to form a party myself, and was shot down, so I will not allow any other faction to do the same in overt or covert ways. If I see that, I will make it a CC or a PI and even propose a new
penal code for rigging elections.

 

[Sarevok]

I agree 100% Political parties can only mean 1 thing: Trouble

 

[Cyc]

The amendment would probably go in Article A, which speaaks about the citizens right to assemble ~

            All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen 
            Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the 
            right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right 
            to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to 
            representation, the right to seek to redress grievances 
            and the right to vote.
            Political parties or slate polling, as defined by lower law,
            are not permitted.

That puts it right up front. Even the people who give up reading the Constitution early on are sure to read Article A.

 

[Comnenus]

Since there can be some disagreement on exactly what a political party is, the activities that are expressly prohibited need to be defined, probably by law and not in the constitution.

I realize upon rereading the article that that is stated, but it needs to be followed up before some yahoo creates a problem for the judiciary.

 

[Gregski]

The only thing I am against is forced / very strongly suggested voting. If you are the member of a guild or a group of citizens in general, you would probably vote for the people in the group since:
1. They are your friends (probably)
2. They are closest to your strategy (playing style), hence best representing your views.

Nothing wrong with either reasons.

My suggestion: People can form groups and guilds and whatnot, but these groups are restricted to a common goal, sharing of ideas etc. It cannot dictate any policy to its members.

For instance the group might come to a consensus that instead of building a library, the city XYZ would be better served by a marketplace. This view would potentially be transmitted to the people in the relevant positions.

However the group cannot suggest that WZ who is in the race for an election for a particular role should not be voted for as s/he does not share this view. Members of the group have to do their own research in such matters.

Any comments?

 

[blackheart]

Yes, we must ban political parties otherwise the government will just be a stage for infighting and nothing will get accomplished.

 

[Gregski]

Instead of banning political parties, we should ban certain political activities. For instance we could have an amendment to say:

Each citizen who wishes to vote must do so under her/his own accord based on personal beliefs and knowledge acquired independently without systematic influence, instruction or order from another citizen or group of citizens.

This way, you could still whip up support for a candidate during an election like:
XY has a proven track record, vote for her as President.

 

[blackheart]

Instead of banning political parties, we should ban certain political activities. For instance we could have an amendment to say:



This way, you could still whip up support for a candidate during an election like:
XY has a proven track record, vote for her as President.

It would be hard to ban certain political activities because what would the activites be and how would you define it? Like the banning of one party voting. Can we really restrict people to do this? I mean it's their choice who to vote for, and we can't really tell whether it's their preference or their political parties, so I say ban political parties alltogether.

 

[Gregski]

I was thinking more along the lines of saying to you that you have to / should vote for me or a specific candidate should be not allowed. Basically any command / order structure to be outlawed, but people gathering and expressing their ideas is acceptable. Ultimately, there will be a lot of grey areas and we will have to use common sense to decide what is allowed and what is not.