Should political party's be allowed

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

wel ,i gave this some thought ,and i guess political party's have their advantage's and disadvantages.

Advantage's:

-People of same oppinion's cangather under a coman party.
-The party can represent the oppinion of their member's by objecting to the decission's made by leader's and not in line with the oppinion's of the party.

Disadvantage's:

-Member's of party's can seriously influence ellection's as member's can conspire to vote for eachother
-Party's wouldn't always be balanced ,meaning that almost everybody would like to be with the most powerfull party.

Well ,if somebody see's more advantage's or disatvantage's to party's ,then post them on this thread.i'll edit my first post then to add that point.

This is more like a poll to get some feedback or input.If it come's to allowing party's ,then the cabinet must aprove that. (changing of constitution)
but afcourse ,if the majority is pro party's then that may influence that cabinet vote.

Give it youre thought.We gona take some time for this decission ,we don't have to rush this.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Not really a good idea, for one thing too few of us at the present. For another, we'll then need to organise the parties themselves. Otherwise, how'll we decide who can speak for the party? Who to run for which post etc?

It'll make the game even more complicated than it shld be. And what if someone wants to join 2 parties?

Well, we got thru the Civ2 demo game pretty much w/o any political parties; no reason we need parties now.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Not really a good idea, for one thing too few of us at the present. For another, we'll then need to organise the parties themselves. Otherwise, how'll we decide who can speak for the party? Who to run for which post etc?

It'll make the game even more complicated than it shld be. And what if someone wants to join 2 parties?

Well, we got thru the Civ2 demo game pretty much w/o any political parties; no reason we need parties now.

If we referendum the constitution to allow parties it could be done in a manner that is low overhead. Just off the top of my head I can think up a couple things:

1. Each citizen (this includes governors, councilmembers, et al) can belong to one and only one party.
2. Any citizen can found a party. That citizen is the chairman of the party until the next general election.
3. During the general election each party will vote for a new chairman. Only party members can vote for the party chairman.
4. Each party will have a thread to keep track of their membership and hold interparty discussions.
5. Only the chairperson can post for the party in other threads.
6. Parties are not "official" and cannot post as a party until there are at least 2 members. This will prevent having 30 parties with one member each.
7. Party members are not restricted to voting along party lines in any public poll.
8. Party chairpersons cannot be impeached but party members are free to leave the party if they feel the chairperson is not properly representing the party in other threads.
9. A citizen may either leave or join a party in any single day. This will prevent "jump ships" and instant coalitions.

We'll also need someone to watch the parties to make sure each citizen is in only one party and that citizens don't quit and join in the same day. Perhaps a master party list thread to keep it all in order. A duty of the domestic leader? A new governmental position or civilian watchdog?

 

[Shaitan]

10. No cabinet or official governmnetal position (deputy, etc) can be held by a party chairman. If a citizen is running for a governmental position in the general election they cannot run in a party election.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Shaitan
10. No cabinet or official governmnetal position (deputy, etc) can be held by a party chairman. If a citizen is running for a governmental position in the general election they cannot run in a party election.

But isn't the main point bout political parties is that they run for office as a single platform on a certain election theme, probably with the chairman going for the Presidency? Like in real life.

Otherwise, they don't seem to be much differentiated fr the citizen groupings we have now.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
But isn't the main point bout political parties is that they run for office as a single platform on a certain election theme, probably with the chairman going for the Presidency? Like in real life.

Otherwise, they don't seem to be much differentiated fr the citizen groupings we have now.

That's what I was going for but also protecting against an accumulation of too much power in one individual. If we change #10 to the following it should fix the problem you describe:

"No cabinet or official governmental position (deputy, etc) can be held by a party chairperson. If a citizen is elected to both a governmental position and a party chair position, they must resign one of them. In this case the resigned position would be held by the candidate with the next highest plurality."

In real life no party chair ever runs for office. The jobs are too different and the personel never fit the criteria of both positions. In our world the opposite is true - the same traits that would make someone a good choice for chairperson are pretty much the same traits as we're looking for in the cabinet. This rule would prevent a citizen who's already the head of a powerful party from adding the power of a cabinet position while still allowing the party to present a unified ticket.

 

[Kentonio]

I am totally with Shaitan on the conditions he suggests.

I suggested overturning the no-party rule, not to allow individuals more power but simply to allow the non-elected citizens a way to involve themselves. It is fine for the cabinet etc because you always have something to do but for a citizen it can often be a case of just reading over the threads which can become quite dull if nothing much is occuring in the game.

I would also add the following condition.

11. No party may mirror the title of a real life political party.

This is because I envisage partys to be a fun, engaging thing, not just a carryon of real life loyalties and ties.

@Knight-Dragon, Parties will be constructed and organized by the founder of the party and its members, this is intended to be something for the citizens not the cabinet and as such would add no more micromanagement to the moderator and cabinet(or at least very little ).

Kentonio

 

[Shaitan]

No majority either way yet but the plurality tends to an "aye" vote (5 for, 3 against, 4 no comment). Duck, how long did you set the poll for?

I'm curious how the cabinetmembers feel as a constitutional change has to be approved by the cabinet.

Personally (in case you didn't guess by my previous posts) I'm in favor so long as we can work out proper restrictions.

 

[Charis]

I'm in strong disagreement with the party system (for this game anyway)

It totally changes the nature of the game from one with a competent set of leaders playing the turns, gathering input, and deciding by taking into account the voice of the people, into a competetive rather than a cooperative game, with the main focus becoming a political game outside the realm of the civ 3 game.

The concept may or may not work, but it would have a HUGE impact on the current game. The party-system, as well as the more 'Republic' game mentioned in another thread both have merit, so don't take this in any way as a flame -- just my 2c on what I would like in this game.

The leaders should be listening to the people, especially to those organized enough (and getting into the spirit of the game) to form 'citizen groups'. If the people don't like their decisions or feel they're being ignored, elect someone else.

"Impeach me or throw me a victory parade... in either case
I'll be on the battlefield protecting the interests of Phoenatica!"


Charis

 

[Cyc]

i would like to add another option to the poll - *yes, i am totally pro party, but only on certain points and have no specific preferences. well, maybe i'm against it, but i may change my mind...are you mad?

there is way too much political flip-flopping in this game. unless you are full steam ahead military aggression or the blind faith follower there are no political views. regardless of what you might say today, politicians with the backbone of a jellyfish can be bought out with favors and fooled by poltical trickery. our nation is young. we need to develop a sense of oneness before we split of into rival factions.

as charis mentioned, citizen groups, which are covered in the constitution, are an excellent way to convey your politcal thoughts. it seems the political arena has already been well defined, and all these new changes make us appear to be in anarchy as opposed to a democracy.

elect your leaders, participate in opinion polls, form your citizen groups and discuss the matters at hand. be a part of the big picture of phoenatica today. change will come.

 

[Badluck]

how can i change my vote???, i voted for i have no specific preference ,either one is good

and i want to Party's??? are you smurfing mad?? NEVER!!!

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

how can i change my vote???, i voted for i have no specific preference ,either one is good

i changed youre vote.

 

[donsig]

A 'Democracy' game without political parties. That's a great one.

I'm somewhat at a loss in understanding the difference between a citizen's group and a political party. What is it that a political party can do that a citizen's group can't?

I can't help but reflect on the parrallel between this and American history. Both started with a constitution and no notion of political parties. The parties coalesced in the U.S. once there were actually hard choices to be made. There was no way to stop them from forming. I can see the same thing happenning here. Once the tough choices come those who are paying attention will inevitably take sides...

I say that political parties should be treated as any other citizen's group. No regulation is even needed unless the parties are given preffered treatment in an election.

 

[Citizen_K]

Well it's a dead even right now ( 10:10 ), but I think some moderator should combine the "abstain" vote with the "I can't decide" vote for clarity.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by donsig
I'm somewhat at a loss in understanding the difference between a citizen's group and a political party. What is it that a political party can do that a citizen's group can't?

In the older Civ2 demo game, political parties (banned!) are construed as those that will put up an entire line to run for political offices. Citizens groups are simply clubs or discussion groups or fun groups, who are supposed not to impact the elections.

Here, it seems there's some overlap betw the two already. Maybe we can first define clearly each group category.

 

[donsig]

Here, it seems there's some overlap betw the two already. Maybe we can first define clearly each group category.

The overlap is a natural thing. It is bound to happen.

Having not participated in a demo game before I do not see the evils associated with them. Perhaps someone will elaborate on these evils.

I see nothing wrong with a "political party" or "citizen's group" - or individual citizen, for that matter, proposing a whole slate of candidates. Unless those doing the proposing are some how gaining an unfair advantage in the elections what is the problem?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by donsig
Having not participated in a demo game before I do not see the evils associated with them. Perhaps someone will elaborate on these evils.

I see nothing wrong with a "political party" or "citizen's group" - or individual citizen, for that matter, proposing a whole slate of candidates. Unless those doing the proposing are some how gaining an unfair advantage in the elections what is the problem?

I can't quite remember myself actually. But I think it has to do with some citizens doing too much politicking to the point of distracting fr the game? Or too much irritating political broadcasts? Maybe not enough ppl too.

Ducky, remember why we didn't have political parties?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

no, No, NO!

Check germany`s interior politics right now and you`ll see where parties take things!

Please, keep that outta here!

 

[Stravinski]

What is wrong with the citizens groups right now....

If we just try to add some citizens groups, every group could represent combination of some traits with a general victory condition IE: the war church (militaristic, expansionistic with conquer), the traiders guild... (commercial with diplomatic)... (correct me if i'm wrong)

In this case every citizen could join the group he/she thinks represents him/her the best way. In this case we also get a general view of what most of the people of our civilization want. The people have the power, so the largest group has a lot of influence. However some groups with the somewhat the same ideologic ideas could join "forces".

We could make polls, every 40 turns or so, and let everyone vote on a group, in this way the global strategy of the most supported group should be folowed by the president.

 

[eyrei]

At this juncture, I do not believe it to be a good idea to lift the ban on political parties. Most of us are still learning the 'ropes' of the democracy game, so let us gain more experience before we engage in an activity that Thomas Jefferson himself warned to American people about. Look at the state of politics in the US, and you will see a very good argument for not allowing political parties.