DG4 Discussions - Political Parties

[Peri]

In the Suggestion Book it was suggested that the demogame might benefit from political parties and also that parties would be bad for the game.
This thread is for the purpose of discussing this in greater depth in preparation for DG4.

 

[Bootstoots]

Let's go for it. We should experiment with official political parties in this game. Apolyton does very well with parties and wouldn't abandon them. If they cause too many problems for us, we can simply abolish them later in the game.

 

[Fier Canadien]

I want politics, as the political parties will create a symbiosis of the DG and the RPG. Having some "real" politics in the game would make it more interresting, on the demogame side.

EDIT: I found back a thread about this. Here's a quote from myself:

June the 25th, 2003
I agree about a parlementary system to improve the efficiency of the government.

Here's my idea:



The function of the entities are the following:

Chamer of Commons: Formed of all elected posts (Leader, deputy, chat rep, governors, mayors…). Party based, the leader of the dominant party becomes Prime Minister. The PM chooses a senate formed of CoC members of 4 to 6 persons to lead various inquieries and commissions. All laws, acts and treaties must be voted in the CoC.

Senate: A non-law related entity, its function is to lead the various commisions and public investigations of the President. They have the power to post a decommision poll against any member of the Government if a public investigation lead to accusations.

Presidential Office: formed of all non-elected posts, everything of the CoC must pass trought this entity before ratification. The Presidential Office has the right to hold referendi[/] if they feel that a law, act or treaty might be controversial.

President: Elected independently, the president is party-less. He is the Duty Player and must ratify any law, acts or treaties that the Presidential Office submits to him. He has the power to ask the Senate to proceed to a troughout examination of anything suspect.

The function of parties: A party can present up to one candidate to each of the Leader, Deputy, Chat rep, Governor and Mayor posts. The Party's leader cannot run for any post. He is appointed as "Prime Minister" if his party holds majority in the CoC. He and his council (his party) are responsible for proposing laws. The opposition can present laws as well, but they are not bound to do so. There is no "line of party" or "veto" power. If there is no party that holds the majority, then the biggest party will be considered as leading party. It will have the duty to propose laws. A CoC Leader shall then be elected to hold the Prime Minister's position. This leader must not be member of any party. If the two most important parties hold the same amount of sieges, there shall be two Prime Ministers, each naming half of the senate and each having the duty to propose laws.

Just a proposition of a deranged man.

 

[Bootstoots]

We've been using the same format ever since DG1. Let's go through some change. The proposal above looks like a good one to me.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm curious Fier - what problems in our current structure will be solved with the Parlimentarian approach?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Fier Canadien]

Hmmm, well, it will be more active, with Parties that are opposed one to the other and some in between. The parties could have each their own sub-sub-forum, with a whole community activity in there. There could be online debates between party leaders during the elections, and a lot more activity in the DG, all in all.

 

[RegentMan]

I like the politcal party idea. But what if we get brainwashed by a party, elect them to power, then give them full power, and this turns into a game of dictatorship? This happened to Germany in 1933...

 

[Fier Canadien]

originally posted by RegentMan
I like the politcal party idea. But what if we get brainwashed by a party, elect them to power, then give them full power, and this turns into a game of dictatorship? This happened to Germany in 1933...

And that's what basically happened to us in DG3 T3…

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Fier Canadien


And that's what basically happened to us in DG3 T3…

Very true, and this brings up an interesting point. Let's face it, we've had political parties in this game forever, whether we'd like to acknowledge it or not. They were especially evident during the chaos of DG3 T3, as there were well-defined pro-donsig and anti-donsig camps. Why not go further and acknowledge it? Then, we could have developed debates and the like with candidates that each party lobbies for, as Fier's post a couple of posts back states. Official parties would certainly make this game more interesting.

 

[Falcon02]

to qoute Jet in my Sig...

"Don't know and have no opinion"

really don't care about the idea, neither think it'll be distructive or productive. All I know is I'm gonna be independent....

 

[Sir John]

I love the idea of parties. It would be a cool way of playing the game. But there should be rules that prevent dictatorship. Fore exampel it could be a law in the constitution that sais that to change the constitution a certain amount of people have to agree not just 50%. Perhaps something like 80%. Or perhaps the constituton can only be changed by a peoples vote..

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

no, never, not in this lifetime. I have seen what parties do to a game. This is definately not a good idea for the next game. It seems each game someone tries to snake in this idea and time after time again they get shown the folly of their idea. For examples please refer to DG1 and DG2 archived threads.

 

[Great Iguanaman]

Im proud to say im the snake who tried to insert political parties it DG2! I think, and always have, that political parties will add more depth to this game, and it will most likely increase attendance. The problem with getting political parties up is that all the old schoolers dont want them, and there the ones in power. They just kill the idea before it grows. I say after more discussion we move it to poll.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

i say we do not, your just asking for more problems then good on this issue but then again maybe its best that we institute them so you can all learn the hard way

 

[GenMarshall]

I am totaly against Political Parties. I have the same reason as Fionn has.

 

[Octavian X]

So, one bad experience will dispell the idea? I can point to the original ACDG and C3DG at Apolyton. People I know at both generally agree that the confrontation caused by the parties was the best part of the game.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
no, never, not in this lifetime. I have seen what parties do to a game. This is definately not a good idea for the next game. It seems each game someone tries to snake in this idea and time after time again they get shown the folly of their idea. For examples please refer to DG1 and DG2 archived threads.

We never truly had a full party system, did we? What makes you think that, if we had organized party debates and each party endorsed candidates, that it would ruin the game? Fionn, you do have to admit that de-facto political parties will exist no matter how much you try to stamp it out. And if this does nothing but cause problems, all we have to do is outlaw parties again.

Also, as Oct said, parties work very well at Apolyton, so why can't they work here?

 

[Vander]

I think that we should try parties, but not to the extent of the Parlimentary system. Rather, let us have idiological parties. Your membership to a party represents how you want the game to be played. The party's main function is to get it's people elected to their positions; not a coup of the government.

 

[Sir John]

@Vander: That would be to similar to citizen groups. It wouldnt be much of a change.. I say that we should at least try it and if we see that it doesnt work then we change back..

 

[Peri]

Political parties are a great idea which would add more depth and realism to the game. However if parties were introduced it would ultimately destroy the game. The fundamental concept of this game is a group of people coming together to cooperate and achieve things through working with each other. Politics is about beating the other guy. We would become so obsessed with our particular party winning that we would forget about the game itself.
Political parties are divisive by their very nature and are bad for the ethos of this great game of ours.