(UNofficial poll) Do you want to disolve parties?

Ninot · July 16, 2002, 23:44

There is a feeling going around amongst some prominent members of Apolyton that lead us to think that Party politics are detrimental, and may have lead to the outrageous election that made myself president

Many of us have already stated we hate party politics

so the question is, Do you want to officially disband the current parties (despite if you are in a party or not, this IS unofficial)

1:Yes
2:no

The poll will last 3 days. The Party leaders will weigh this vote VERY heavily, and many of the party members may be requested their opinions.

Please vote your conscious

Sheik · July 17, 2002, 00:10

Oh NO I accidently voted yes when I wanted to vote NO. Of course I don't want to disband parties I am a member of the DIA and think that parties help to organize ideas. MarkG would you please change my vote to NO because I voted Yes by mistake.

Ninot · July 17, 2002, 00:11

lol, its unofficial.. ill remember you if it comes close enough.. and its not like we are gonna make changes if its a 25vs 24 vote..

this isnt the Presidential election after all, we have standards!

notyoueither · July 17, 2002, 00:13

Unfortunately, I can see no good reason for parties in a system of nearly direct democracy.

trevor · July 17, 2002, 00:15

I don't really mind party politics, it adds a sense of realism to the game. Although I think that some are using the party to insult other members of the game. [cough]Timeline[/cough] Oh and Ninot, I voted for Trip, no offense I just thought that Apolytonia shouldn't change horses in midstream( I've heard that before somwhere?)

Ninot · July 17, 2002, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by trevor
I don't really mind party politics, it adds a sense of realism to the game. Although I think that some are using the party to insult other members of the game. [cough]Timeline[/cough] Oh and Ninot, I voted for Trip, no offense I just thought that Apolytonia shouldn't change horses in midstream( I've heard that before somwhere?)

I hold no grudges on anyone, especially not for their voting history.

If I hadn't had been running, I woulda voted for Trip too. But that is of no consequence now, we must look to the future!

Inverse Icarus · July 17, 2002, 00:20

no.

if you destroy the UFC, the War Academy will vote the same way.

people dont join parties to be told how to vote, the join parties because it lets them express their views with people of the same ideology.

and the fact that parties put out candidates is good and bad.

having several warmonger candidates could work both ways. it could pull votes away from all the candidates allowing the DIA-esque candidate to win.

and if you really stop them, you KNOW they'll go underground.

how would you stop them? report their polls to ming?

Epistax · July 17, 2002, 01:12

Yes uber they will always exist, but if anyone in any group decides to vote for someone because they are in the same group, then the evil of them is already apparent. This happens on a mass scale-- people vote for people because they think they are supposed to.

It can't be denied that it happens. I'm trying to think of good things about offical political parties but I can't.

Jon Shafer · July 17, 2002, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Epistax
Yes uber they will always exist, but if anyone in any group decides to vote for someone because they are in the same group, then the evil of them is already apparent. This happens on a mass scale-- people vote for people because they think they are supposed to.

It can't be denied that it happens. I'm trying to think of good things about offical political parties but I can't.

You're absolutely correct. The only argument people have for having political parties is that "they'll come back anyways", or "you can't stop people from organizing". Sorry, that's not a reason to have them, that's WHY they exist.

kring · July 17, 2002, 02:02

Partisan politics is unhealthy; check out RL or even this game.

No good comes of it, no matter what protesters may try to prove otherwise. It detracts from the ultimate goal: winning the game and could very easily lead to the ultimate ungoal: losing the game.

MrWhereItsAt · July 17, 2002, 02:50

Do NOT ban them. We all know parties are just for fun, and I have seen little evidence of anyone silly enough to seriously consider their party membership to mean anything beyond just a group to feel some kind of kinship with.

The reason people feel partisan towards parties is because it is fun to do so. We are all in this, and we are all trying to do what suits us best. If anything parties are good - people that have no involvement in the game otherwise may get drawn into the party, and start contributing.

In the case of a genuine crisis - like the dual Presidency one, where were the silly party tactics supporting your candidates' decision? Nowhere. When it's important we have shown we can get down to business, and that in my mind shows we have the maturity not to let parties cause (too much) havoc.

Kramerman · July 17, 2002, 02:51

If everybody voted strictly for the party in which they belonged, then the party system would most definately be detrimental to our "CyberSociety" (please quote that phrase, I kinda like its ring

). However that isn't the case. Most party memebers do tend to vote for more people in their party than other parties, obviously, but this is more out of common ideals and thought processes that they share, and not out of strict loylaty to their party. That would be obsurd (but sadly in real life people do this with "full party" ballots

). I see parties like a club, almost, a place where people with the same ideas can come together and discuss, and help each other out if need be. I see nothing wrong in this innocent interpretation of party politics. I voted no.

I personally don't affiliate myself with a party because I like to stay open to many differnet political ideas. I am always changing a little bit after hearing new things and ideas, and I think thats good. If I were to be in a party though I'd probably be in one of the more militant ones, or in the thinkers guild, because my two political interests are war and philosophy.

Jon Shafer · July 17, 2002, 04:40

The problem is that some people do vote along party lines, simply because they belong to a party. I for one, think that something like that certainly detracts from our game. Do I think we should ban them? No, that's not what's being proposed. I feel at least right now we can set an example for later in the game, should something like this arise again.

Kuciwalker · July 17, 2002, 07:14

I STILL CAN'T VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Add one to the Yes option.

Kuciwalker · July 17, 2002, 07:20

Kring -

Actually, the ultimate goal is NOT to win. If it was, we would take the best player and make him play the game for its entire length.

Guardian · July 17, 2002, 07:59

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Kring -

Actually, the ultimate goal is NOT to win. If it was, we would take the best player and make him play the game for its entire length.

Ummm... -and how exactly would we determine who's "the best player" ?

Kuciwalker · July 17, 2002, 08:15

Gaurdian -

Who wins the most, etc. The point is that the Democracy part of the game is to add depth to it. Since when have internal politics strengthened a country?

Timeline · July 17, 2002, 08:21

Looks like a close vote. I asked Ninot to put this one up because I am interested in how people feel on this issue.

I voted yes because I can see the detrimental effect party politics are having here. I do not have answers to the questions about other parties rising up, but I'm sure they will.

The DIA, in my opinion was the most successful political party in any demo game of civ, but still I think it would benefit the masses of people more if we did not judge people and candidates by parties.

Soon, there will be an internal vote among our DIA members to assess their feelings on this matter. If we decide for disbandment, then I would like to negotiate a similar action from all members of the UFC. At that point, both our parties could step down simultaneously.

- Timeline

MrWhereItsAt · July 17, 2002, 08:25

In that case it would be a noble sacrifice for the good of Apolytonia, Timeline. But there should be NO impediment to those wanting to start such parties in the future, not those who want to continue in the DIA and UFC or whatever.

Spiffor · July 17, 2002, 08:27

Kring :
I think our ultimate goal here is not to win the game, it's to have fun (agreed, I'd like to win the game too

). Party politics are part of the fun.

But that is not the only reason why we need parties. I acknowledge they're currently near useless, because there is no possible debate : we need war.
But once we become a stable power, there will be a vigorous debate on how to win the game. Not everybody supports a conquest / domination victory, not everybody supports a cultural / spacecship victory.
In this debate, parties will be extremely useful, because they will structurate the debate. Without parties, such an important decision risks to go to government members only (and especially the most noisy among them).

Moreover, when we become a stable power, parties will really mean something during the elections : should we vote for a builder or a warmonger in City Planner position ? Science advisor ? Foreign affairs ? etc. Many posts will be very important, depending on who holds them.
You might say "builders and warmongers can present themselves without belonging to a party". That is right. But without parties, elections could be disorganized enough for warmonggers to win even if they don't get the support of most (or the opposite).
For example, if you have 5 builder candidates and 2 warmonger candidates to an important election (say, city planner), a warmonger could win, even if the sum of builders is more than 50% . With parties, you'll have one builder candidate and one warmonger candidate, and people will get the strategy choice they like the most.

Lastly, don't forget we'll think over ethics at one moment. While the reflection clubs will probably think of different code of ethics, its application in the game will be up to the officials. If a party recognizes itself in an ethics code, it will enforce it when playing. Parties would avoid an "ethical chaos" where each official enforces a different ethics. That would be good for cohesion and roleplaying.

Overall, I clearly see the interest of parties in our direct democracy. That's why I voted a clear NO.

Robber Baron · July 17, 2002, 08:32

No. No. NO!
What could be less democratic than banning the people's right to organize!
In virtually any representative government on the face of the RL planet, parties form. There's a reason.

jdjdjd · July 17, 2002, 09:02

As the eastern religion of Taoism teaches us, there are opposing forces in the world that work in harmony and together are needed. Without one, there is no other, and the world is not right. For example, can we know day without night? Is there life without death? Can you know happy if you have never been sad?

Can I be independent, if there are no politcal parties?

civman2000 · July 17, 2002, 09:28

Quote:

You're absolutely correct. The only argument people have for having political parties is that "they'll come back anyways", or "you can't stop people from organizing". Sorry, that's not a reason to have them, that's WHY they exist.

Of course! BUt it is a reason to not disband the ones we have now because they are strong and they will just come back. Ideally, there would be 5 or so separate, strong, and organized parties with around 10 members each, but:
1. They will not all be organized, and hte ones that are will swallow others that ahave somewhat similar beliefs.
2. Ones with similar beliefs will merge together.

THe only way to stop having a 2 (or possibly 3) party system is the abolish them altogether, which is not worht doing. Dissolving the ones we have now will just create chaos for a week or two while things sort out.

I don't like having 2 parties, buut 2 is better than none or 10 unorganized ones.

Harovan · July 17, 2002, 10:13

To disband parties by force is neither good nor is it possible. However, in their current form, they don't do any good. Even worse, by restricting their members from voting for candidates of other parties, they put our democracy in question. I think the best way to deal with them is to ignore their existence. I don't give a damn, what party somebody is in. What counts for me, is loyality and competence. Such people can be found in all parties and among the independents.

Epistax · July 17, 2002, 10:19

Perhaps we can delcare a party to have a monopoly and order it split (this is only half a joke).

If everyone ignored party lines when it came to voting, there would be no problem with it, but these people join organizations to be part of something more. They feel stronger by voting as a unit of people, and thus losing their individuality of thought and reason. The only person that should EVER vote on party lines is the one that agrees with each of the candidates in their field AND believes they will do the best job--- for you do NOT elect someone into position who has your beliefs but cannot act the role *cough* bush *cough*

civman2000 · July 17, 2002, 10:27

Parties may pressure their members, but it is what the members must accept if they want to be in the party. This is no reason to ban parties. The government should not be able to ban parties by force, but if party leaders agree they can dissolve their own party. However, nothing stops the members from re-forming it.

Harovan · July 17, 2002, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
Parties may pressure their members, but it is what the members must accept if they want to be in the party.

Sure, our citizens have the freedom to be unfree.

Ninot · July 17, 2002, 11:27

Please note: I never said I would keep parties out of this game by choice.

This is merely a poll to see if those among us wish to disband the parties. That does not mean we are outlawing the gatherment of any parties in the present or future, just searching into the facts of how many people dislike the parties that are arround, and wish they weren't around.

Sure, IF the yes side ran away with the votes, there would be some grounds to consider anti-party ammendments. But this is a people's government first and foremost. Therefor, parties will stay if you wish them to. And currently, it very much appears as if Parties will always be a part of this game. With so many No votes, this poll has pretty much answered us.

July 17, 2002, 11:58

But won't most parties fall into the categories of "pacifist" or "warmonger" anyway (with some slight moderation)? I mean, how many other factions could there possibly be?

Kuciwalker · July 17, 2002, 12:43

Well, this is where my Civ3 Roleplaying Game idea really becomes interesting: parties could actually represent ideas about internal economics (how bananas are allocated, etc.), much like the real world.