Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Constitutional Convention => Topic started by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 10:04:49 AM



Title: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
I've mentioned that I believe we should not 'cut and paste' existing party structures and parties into any new system. While we do not know what system we will adopt, it may be detrimental to the system if we bring with us...'old habits.'

Now I don't believe that a change is that radical. Remember that my own current DA came out of an inactive NLC, which came from Moderates and the FDP. Parties are constatntly changing name and memebership - but the flow of thought is quite similar. I fully expect conservatives to gather into one party, socialists and social democrats into another and so forth.

I think it would be helpful if we began discussion of party systems alongside government systems. Even if no agreement is reached, discussion would get us far.

Thoughts?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Smid on April 05, 2009, 10:16:07 AM
I am very proudly a member of the RPP, however I have often worked closely with and I greatly respect the DA and most DA members (that's not to say I disrespect other party members, but I don't think I could see myself in the same party as Lief - who I respect greatly on a personal level, who received my second preference in his last election and who I hope is returned in the next Senate election). I could comfortably fit in something of a merged party of the RPP and DA - which I guess wouldn't be a merged party, but a new party comprised of overlapping members of those two parties.

I think that your idea has merit.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 10:25:25 AM
I am very proudly a member of the RPP, however I have often worked closely with and I greatly respect the DA and most DA members (that's not to say I disrespect other party members, but I don't think I could see myself in the same party as Lief - who I respect greatly on a personal level, who received my second preference in his last election and who I hope is returned in the next Senate election). I could comfortably fit in something of a merged party of the RPP and DA - which I guess wouldn't be a merged party, but a new party comprised of overlapping members of those two parties.

I think that your idea has merit.

Thank you.

I think that if we operated a universal system for example, it would be important to bring independents on board the party system, or at least to caucus with them. Parties have to be less centralist and more open to differing opinion, both of the left and right. I have said before that I think have concentrated too much on forum affairs issues in the recent past and this has affected campaigns and elections. A new way of playing where economics, welfare and foreign affairs become central and the legislature becomes more responsive to these concerns (such as the worldwide recession) would make for a broader game. The more you try and define what is conservative, liberal, socialist the narrower the appeal of such parties become. That is why, for a long time centrists, moderates and independent were so powerful.

I'm not suggesting we should just have two parties, or three parties but we need to come together. If we have to have two left of centre parties for example, lets have that decision made after everyone 'of the left' has came together. It means that there may be two parties as a result, but there is room for consensus between them both.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 05, 2009, 11:09:51 AM
RPP or no RPP, the party will exist with nearly the same members no matter what the system.  We are the conservatives of Atlasia and we need to unite


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 11:15:12 AM
RPP or no RPP, the party will exist with nearly the same members no matter what the system.  We are the conservatives of Atlasia and we need to unite

But you do understand there are conservatives who are currently outside the RPP, as members of other parties or as independents? Do you think there is any common cause that can be found under a new system and in a new successor party?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 05, 2009, 11:18:55 AM
RPP or no RPP, the party will exist with nearly the same members no matter what the system.  We are the conservatives of Atlasia and we need to unite

But you do understand there are conservatives who are currently outside the RPP, as members of other parties or as independents? Do you think there is any common cause that can be found under a new system and in a new successor party?
I don't know, they are certainly are not many conservatives outside of the RPP.  AndrewCT is about the only one off hand I can think of, possibly Mr. Moderate could be considered a conservative.  The RPP has done a great job of uniting conservatives into one base, people's ability to get others to unite around their cause isn't going to change because we have a convention.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 11:20:52 AM
RPP or no RPP, the party will exist with nearly the same members no matter what the system.  We are the conservatives of Atlasia and we need to unite

But you do understand there are conservatives who are currently outside the RPP, as members of other parties or as independents? Do you think there is any common cause that can be found under a new system and in a new successor party?
I don't know, they are certainly are not many conservatives outside of the RPP.  AndrewCT is about the only one off hand I can think of, possibly Mr. Moderate could be considered a conservative.  The RPP has done a great job of uniting conservatives into one base, people's ability to get others to unite around their cause isn't going to change because we have a convention.

I hope you are aware that I'm a conservative :) Some others may be considered to be 'classical liberals' in the sense they are socially liberal but economically conservative and right of centre. That's what I mean by a 'big tent' approach.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 05, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
But if we adopt that "big tent" approach, don't we really break ourselves down into merely two parties?  What I like now is that staunch conservatives (although I mean that in Atlasian terms) fall with the RPP, staunch liberals with the SDP, moderate conservatives/liberals with the DA, and liberals in the Pacific with the JCP.  The 4 party approach with smaller tents does seem to have its benefits.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 11:40:01 AM
But if we adopt that "big tent" approach, don't we really break ourselves down into merely two parties?  What I like now is that staunch conservatives (although I mean that in Atlasian terms) fall with the RPP, staunch liberals with the SDP, moderate conservatives/liberals with the DA, and liberals in the Pacific with the JCP.  The 4 party approach with smaller tents does seem to have its benefits.

Not necessarily. The plan is for a big tent approach to party formation, prior to any constitutional changes taking effect. If 'the left' and 'the right' meet there may be agreement to create two parties. If however they meet, agree to disagree and form two broadly conservative parties for example, they can still work together as two or more seperate parties. The UK Conservatives had a huge party wide discussion over shared principles and what we stand for as a party back in 2006. It could have caused splits, and out opponents thought it would but we came together and voted on a platform of values we all shared and wanted to expand upon.

I do not want to 'usurp' existing parties, but have a discussion that brings together different strands of what are, when you strip it down, the same principles.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 05, 2009, 12:12:01 PM
I think a strengthening of the party system is crucial to the game, but I also think that any sort of parliamentary system would necessitate that naturally. In the Presidential Universalism system, I've called for some sort of party-list proportional vote (either fully, or along side members elected in "districts" or regions), to really make sure that the election and support of a Prime Minister and his government functions like it does in parliamentary systems.

I'd also be opposed to any sort of big tent parties, as that would be rather boring.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 12:31:38 PM
I have a slight problem with this sort of thread in the Convention. While I agree that the way in which parties should be involved in the government is important, especially with the inevitable addition of a PM to the game. However, what is so far being discussed is more internal party politics, such as mergers and caucusing.

This thread can be an important resource for the development of the role of parties in Atlas (as Lief was discussing), but I would rather we not see actual party development here.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 12:43:04 PM
I have a slight problem with this sort of thread in the Convention. While I agree that the way in which parties should be involved in the government is important, especially with the inevitable addition of a PM to the game. However, what is so far being discussed is more internal party politics, such as mergers and caucusing.

This thread can be an important resource for the development of the role of parties in Atlas (as Lief was discussing), but I would rather we not see actual party development here.

I don't believe we are anywhere close to talks of mergers and caucusing. But I feel that we are now at a moment in the Convention where the roles of parties and what these parties will constitute should be discussed in relation to the proposed systems. When the new system is implimented, parties will be important - people should know what to expect when the game starts.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 12:57:47 PM
I have a slight problem with this sort of thread in the Convention. While I agree that the way in which parties should be involved in the government is important, especially with the inevitable addition of a PM to the game. However, what is so far being discussed is more internal party politics, such as mergers and caucusing.

This thread can be an important resource for the development of the role of parties in Atlas (as Lief was discussing), but I would rather we not see actual party development here.

I don't believe we are anywhere close to talks of mergers and caucusing. But I feel that we are now at a moment in the Convention where the roles of parties and what these parties will constitute should be discussed in relation to the proposed systems. When the new system is implimented, parties will be important - people should know what to expect when the game starts.

There has been enough talk of RPP or no RPP, creating a center/right party, etc. I'm not saying these discussions should be ignored, but some of the conversation here should be reserved for another time.

An idea regarding parties that I posted earlier: Perhaps create a "cap" for party membership. Essentially a party may have no more than 10 members. This creates a situation in which party membership is more coveted, it creates a greater need for party loyalty, but also inter-party alliances. New members may be admitted to a party at the expense of a more reticent, unpopular current member. Leadership of parties will be important. Ousted members may form their own parties to take down their ousters. This would create a more dynamic, flowing party structure. May increase tension, but the whole game would be a lot more exciting.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 01:04:34 PM
An idea regarding parties that I posted earlier: Perhaps create a "cap" for party membership. Essentially a party may have no more than 10 members. This creates a situation in which party membership is more coveted, it creates a greater need for party loyalty, but also inter-party alliances. New members may be admitted to a party at the expense of a more reticent, unpopular current member. Leadership of parties will be important. Ousted members may form their own parties to take down their ousters. This would create a more dynamic, flowing party structure. May increase tension, but the whole game would be a lot more exciting.

That idea would increase tension...but the wrong sort of tension. It could allow for an interesting game don't get me wrong, but it could also be used against individuals. These 'unpopular' members may be unpopular simply because of personal attacks or moves against them rather than anything they have specifically done. In short, some could essentially be 'bullied' out. The game should be safe and impersonal.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 01:08:21 PM
An idea regarding parties that I posted earlier: Perhaps create a "cap" for party membership. Essentially a party may have no more than 10 members. This creates a situation in which party membership is more coveted, it creates a greater need for party loyalty, but also inter-party alliances. New members may be admitted to a party at the expense of a more reticent, unpopular current member. Leadership of parties will be important. Ousted members may form their own parties to take down their ousters. This would create a more dynamic, flowing party structure. May increase tension, but the whole game would be a lot more exciting.

That idea would increase tension...but the wrong sort of tension. It could allow for an interesting game don't get me wrong, but it could also be used against individuals. These 'unpopular' members may be unpopular simply because of personal attacks or moves against them rather than anything they have specifically done. In short, some could essentially be 'bullied' out. The game should be safe and impersonal.

Well, we could always say politics is rough. But I guess it's more of a community here (usually). ;)

So what can we do to create the right kind of tension here?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Hash on April 05, 2009, 01:33:27 PM
I don't think the Constitution should dictate any rules concerning parties. Parties should be allowed to draft their own by-laws and abide to them as they see fit. I also oppose this idea of setting "caps" on party membership. Yes, it would be fun. But I don't want to see [bad] tension, personal attacks and the like increase as a result of having parties with very limited membership. I don't like the "that's how it's in the real world" argument. We're not the real world. We're not a country. We're a community of a few members who do this primarily to have fun. We're not paid politicians. We do this for fun and not to make new enemies (quite the reverse, actually). As I said in the past, this is a game, peoples. Parties themselves should be allowed to become as large as possible, if there's enough members who wish to join that party. Parties should be allowed to expel members by approval of a majority of members, but clauses like that should not be in the Constitution. That's up to party bylaws and party leaders to take care of. The government has no role to play in internal party politics. I will oppose any constitution, universalist included, which seeks to have the federal government "regulate" political parties and the like.

Party systems is also up to the various members of the various parties. We don't want to have a ConCon set up a party system and then tell them "now, choose one of the parties we created for you". If such and such party wishes to merge with so and so, then they should be allowed to do so. But we shouldn't "force" parties to merge or create coalitions out of the blue. They should come about naturally as a result of a constitutional change. I see nothing wrong with the current parties continuing under a new constitutional set-up if these parties are able to reform accordingly. Do note, however, that I am strong proponent of strengthening parties in Atlasia and turning Atlasia away from a game of various individuals united by weak, leaderless "parties" into a game where parties have a bigger role to play. Of course, these parties must have strong leadership and united. This is why I support the party-list PR proposed by Lief. Or any system that strengthens parties.

The idea of a large tent party has been brought up by Afleitch. I am opposed to this. Firstly, I prefer a multi-party system that allows for fun times, coalition building, and the like. I don't see the fun in a return to a dichotomy of a large left-wing party and a large right-wing party. That would just create two large, very heterozygous parties. That's quite boring, also.

I also think such discussions might be better placed outside of this ConCon, which, as I have said above, should not attempt to regulate parties. This discussion might be better placed later, but there's no harm in having it now.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 01:44:57 PM
I am in agreement with much of what you say, and you've probably put things in a better way than I did! I wouldn't wish for imposed parties, or even necessarily 'big tent' parties (I aired that as a possibility of any discussion - and big tent parties don't necessarily mean 'big parties' - The DA is a big tent party, but we are not the largest party.) but at the same time, I don't think we should simply move to a new system with the old parties without discussion; particularly as a high number of independents exist because they don't want to be part of a party or party structure.

If we propose a strong party system, then we need to look at the independents especially in a larger game. We can't have someone look at the new system, look at the old parties and think 'well I didn't like any of them then and I don't like them now - screw this particuarly if party lists and membership have more weight in a new system.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Hash on April 05, 2009, 01:58:49 PM
I am in agreement with much of what you say, and you've probably put things in a better way than I did! I wouldn't wish for imposed parties, or even necessarily 'big tent' parties (I aired that as a possibility of any discussion - and big tent parties don't necessarily mean 'big parties' - The DA is a big tent party, but we are not the largest party.) but at the same time, I don't think we should simply move to a new system with the old parties without discussion; particularly as a high number of independents exist because they don't want to be part of a party or party structure.

If we propose a strong party system, then we need to look at the independents especially in a larger game. We can't have someone look at the new system, look at the old parties and think 'well I didn't like any of them then and I don't like them now - screw this particuarly if party lists and membership have more weight in a new system.

As I said above, parties should choose to stay, reform, merge, or do whatever on their own. If an old party chooses to continue on as before, then so be it. Good for them, I guess. If they choose to merge with another party and a large part of the membership agrees, then so be it. It should not be up to delegates to a ConCon to make up rules for that. I am of the personal opinion that parties should reform following the convention to fit in with the new system. I also think, not just since today, but have thought for a long time, that parties should be open to various members as long as they adhere to the ideas, values, and desires of said party. All this crap to say that what happens to parties after the convention is up to the respective parties, and not a few masterminds at the convention deciding the past path for them to follow.

On the topic of independents, which I forgot :P to mention, it would depend on the system. If thee recalls I proposed a French-like caucusing system if the universal system is adopted. I'll post it here for reference' sake.

Quote
However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

This is largely conditional to a parliamentary system, of course, but the general gist of this could be a good compromise. I strongly believe that Independents should be allowed to remain Independents. They should also be allowed to become Prime Minister if they can build a coalition around them of various parties. Parties should try to attract these Indies, but, again, that's up to respective parties.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 02:07:22 PM
The causus idea is a fair compromise as long as it does not drive the whole game. By which I mean to the extent that bills have to 'wait' while voting groups, party blocs and indys line up behind the scenes to get the necessary support for it to fail or pass, but again that is conditional to the set up of the game and could only really effect a large universal system.

It's a good starting point though :)


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Devilman88 on April 05, 2009, 02:41:45 PM
I have an idea.

I believe we should get rid of the current parties and have two caucuses to start off with, Constitutive and Liberal. These caucuses aren't parties, but the people you caucuses with on issues/electing PMs/Senates etc. Then you can have a bunch of small parties under each caucus that can have their own special issues to push or whatnot.

For Example:

Constitutive Caucus: The Republican Party, the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party would fall under this.

Liberal Caucus: The Democratic Party, The Green Party, The Socialist Party would fall under this.

Do you get what I am saying?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Hash on April 05, 2009, 02:57:35 PM
None of the parties mentioned above exist in Atlasia, for starters.

On the general idea, I'm opposed to it. I want a strong party system, not just a system of people that are really independents joining small joke parties that have no structure and no point in the game. That doesn't work and it's boring, as shown in the past.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Devilman88 on April 05, 2009, 03:03:46 PM
None of the parties mentioned above exist in Atlasia, for starters.

On the general idea, I'm opposed to it. I want a strong party system, not just a system of people that are really independents joining small joke parties that have no structure and no point in the game. That doesn't work and it's boring, as shown in the past.

I know them parties aren't in Atlasia, I was just using US Parties because I did not want to label any Atlasian party wrong.

I don't think it would make joke parties, I believe it would make the game better then what we have right now. For one it will get other parties to work together to have people elected. You can even have it where each caucuses could hold primaries to elect members to run for offices. It just an idea which is more the most people are doing.



Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Hash on April 05, 2009, 03:41:44 PM
I don't think it would make joke parties, I believe it would make the game better then what we have right now. For one it will get other parties to work together to have people elected. You can even have it where each caucuses could hold primaries to elect members to run for offices. It just an idea which is more the most people are doing.

Yes, it would make for joke parties. What are the point of parties if they all end up caucusing together? I'd also note that your wording "Then you can have a bunch of small parties" doesn't make it seem like you really care for a strong party system.

Nothing prevents parties in a strong system from working together. That's the whole point of coalition governments.

We need strong united political parties, not groupings of people or big tent caucuses, and I don't think your plan offers that.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 04:00:58 PM
There needs to be some way to allow for small parties to achieve actual representation and some form of influence. Otherwise you end up with problems like we have now, such as the lack of diverse right-leaning parties. Instead, the RPP has monopolized and rightward leanings, essentially creating a "large tent" party with a "small tent" soul, or a machine of die-hard righties with the support of more moderate conservatives with no other alternatives.

Of course I figured the whole cap thing wouldn't fly, nor would it work to cap the number of seats a party may hold. But is there some constitutional construct we can establish to ensure diversity of parties?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Meeker on April 05, 2009, 04:03:45 PM
Strong parties. Mandatory registration. No independents and one-member parties.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 05, 2009, 04:05:30 PM
We need to make sure that several parties can exist and people can survive politically as independents. I don't want to see the party system become mandatory and monopolized by just a couple parties.

As long as whatever people do/come up with doesn't hurt independents and smaller parties, then fine. But I really have concerns about trying to purge the small parties and the independents or force them into a group.

I also don't think we have any right to discuss that sort of thing in the ConCon anyway, party relations should be left up to the people to decide.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 05, 2009, 04:06:42 PM
Strong parties. Mandatory registration. No independents and one-member parties.

That sounds terrible. People should have the freedom to register as whatever they please and associate with whoever they want to associate with, if anyone at all. I see no reason at all to do something so extreme.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 04:08:22 PM
Strong parties. Mandatory registration. No independents and one-member parties.

How do you make parties "strong?" The larger goal should be to find ways to almost create an environment habitable to a multitude of parties, making parliamentary government more interesting.

I also don't think we have any right to discuss that sort of thing in the ConCon anyway, party relations should be left up to the people to decide.

While the Constitution shouldn't dictate what parties must do, it can very much influence how the party layout is structured. We could easily influence Atlasia into a two-party system or a multi-party system. That's why it is important that we discuss this. Our decisions here have a larger impact on the game than just a little rewording. It changes the whole dynamics.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 05, 2009, 05:32:16 PM
Strong parties. Mandatory registration. No independents and one-member parties.

This + proportional party lists and we're golden.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 05, 2009, 06:04:54 PM
Why should I be forced into a party if none represent my views or I have personal disagreements with others?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 05, 2009, 06:16:15 PM
Well, maybe we'd only do it for candidates? I mean, the chances of not finding a party or being able to found a party with enough like-minded people are pretty slim.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 06:17:32 PM
Well, maybe we'd only do it for candidates? I mean, the chances of not finding a party or being able to found a party with enough like-minded people are pretty slim.

Wouldn't it be impossible to found a new party as a new member? You would have to break off from a party you belong to because you can't start off not in a party. I would say mandatory parties is a little...unnecessary. Party membership helps anyway, so people tend to end up in a party.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Brandon H on April 05, 2009, 07:07:01 PM
For starters, we need to remove the 5 persons make a major party clause from the Constitution.

I wouldn't set a hard number like 10 for a limit. If atlasia ever gets to 200 people, there will be 20 parties, with two or three from each side of the spectrum being nearly identical. Further it would turn into a game of survivor when you have an 11th member showing interest.

If we are going to have more diverse parties, then we need more diverse political views of our members (meaning less straight party line real life Republicans and Democrats). When Atlasian parties were at their most competitive, we had 5 strong diverse parties along the entire political spectrum.

Question for people from countries that have a parliament: do parties that form a coalition together form the same coalition at lower levels (in our case regions) or only in the parliament?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 05, 2009, 07:10:08 PM
Well, maybe we'd only do it for candidates? I mean, the chances of not finding a party or being able to found a party with enough like-minded people are pretty slim.

Wouldn't it be impossible to found a new party as a new member? You would have to break off from a party you belong to because you can't start off not in a party. I would say mandatory parties is a little...unnecessary. Party membership helps anyway, so people tend to end up in a party.

     I'd agree that mandatory parties is overboard. There was a time when I first joined when parties were utterly meaningless. The rise of the RPP & SDP as well as the renewed strength of the JCP has led to much stronger party structures without them becoming suffocating. It helps to be amember of a party, but people can still succeed without being one.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Hash on April 05, 2009, 07:22:44 PM
Question for people from countries that have a parliament: do parties that form a coalition together form the same coalition at lower levels (in our case regions) or only in the parliament?

Canada has fucked up the whole concept of parliamentarianism, so I won't bother.

In France, there has been the development of a gauche plurielle at all levels of governance. The gauche plurielle (Socialists, Greenies, Commies, random lefties) governed at a national level, and, in most cases, they also govern at a local level together, in regions and in towns. In many cases most parties run common lists or common compromise candidates, even. The right, in its pre-2002 days also were in quasi-perpetual coalition at all levels of government.

In Germany, however, it's almost the opposite. Coalitions vary from state to state. Some are Grand Coalitions (SPD, CDU), traditionally centre-right formula (CDU, FDP), traditionally centre-left formula (SPD, Grune), controversial (SPD, Linke), or plain weird (CDU, Grune). It varies. Same thing in Spain, Austria, and a lot of other European countries with coalition systems. In Italy, it's all over the place, since it's Italy.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Smid on April 05, 2009, 07:39:10 PM
Question for people from countries that have a parliament: do parties that form a coalition together form the same coalition at lower levels (in our case regions) or only in the parliament?

I can only speak from an Australian perspective on this one.

The Liberal-National Coalition at a federal level has been very strong. The parties have been in Coalition for as long as I can remember, and as far as I'm aware have not broken from the Coalition since the old UAP-Country Party Coalition before the Second World War. Back then, Sir Robert Menzies and Earle Paige didn't get on so well, despite being the leaders of those parties, and one of the most scathing attacks launched in the Parliament (by the standards of the day) was an attack by Paige on Menzies for not enlisting during WWI. It seems pretty tame by today's standards, though.

Nonetheless, in 1975, when the Liberal Party under Fraser defeated Whitlam, the Liberal Party had enough seats to form a majority government in the House, without the need for a coalition with the National Party. Despite this, Fraser kept the Coalition Agreement in place and gave National Party MPs ministries in the Government and the National Party Leader, Doug Anthony, became the Deputy Prime Minister.

In 1996, Howard swept to power with again enough Liberal MPs to form a majority government without the National Party, however he also appointed National Party Leader, Tim Fisher, Deputy Prime Minister and gave the National Party various ministries - indeed, more than their numbers in the House would have dictated under the Coalition Agreement.

Of course, since then, the Liberal Party would have needed National Party MPs to form a Coalition Government, but the point is that even when this is not the case, the Coalition hasn't been disolved at a federal level and remained strong even when it's been unnecessary. This has led some to say that the Liberal and National Parties are an urban and rural faction of the one conservative party. Relations between the two parties are not always smooth, however.

In Queensland, the National Party has been the dominant conservative party for over fifty years - probably more like eighty years. The Coalition there has been somewhat more unstable in the past, however it must be noted that the two parties have since merged (as of last year). While things seem to be somewhat smooth presently, in the past the Coalition in Queensland has had a rocky relationship. In 1983, the Liberals tore up the Coalition Agreement and left the Government, because of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's refusal to create a committee - I think it was a scrutiny of government spending type committee. The Labor Party was in Opposition and wanted the committee to keep the government accountable and probably dig up information that could be used against it. The Liberals wanted it more from a philosophical accountability perspective (since they were in a coalition government with the National Party) and the Nationals were opposed to the committee. After being torn up in 1983, it took over a decade for the parties to come together again - the Coalition was re-formed in time for the 1995 state election, in which the Coalition came up two seats short of forming government - a byelection in a Labor-held seat (after the election result from the GE was overturned by the courts) led to the Coalition forming a minority government with the support of an independent (Liz Cunningham from Gladstone). Following the 1998 election defeat, the Nationals tore up the Coalition Agreement, before again re-forming it before the 2001 election. They then tore it up again following that election, before re-signing it less than a year later. The past couple of elections, the coalition has together even following electoral defeats, and as I said, the two parties have now merged.

The Coalition is stronger in Victoria and New South Wales, where the National Party is firmly in the minority and faces a declining constituency due to urban growth. As a result, the relationship tends to be stronger. In Victoria, the parties were out of coalition for a few years (I think since the 1999 election defeat of the Kennett Coalition Government) until last year, when a new agreement was signed.

In Western Australia the parties were not in coalition. There was an election earlier this year (and this was discussed at the tail-end of the thread on that election in the International Elections board). Following the election, the National Party leader toyed with the idea of giving support to Labor, before cooler heads prevailed and the coalition was re-formed.

In South Australia, there was only one National Party MP, who decided to join with the Labor Party in coalition in order to receive a ministry.

So in short, while the Liberal and National Parties have been in Coalition for a very long while in most states and federally, the relationship is not always smooth, and in some cases has actually fallen apart.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 05, 2009, 07:54:47 PM
If we are going to have more diverse parties, then we need more diverse political views of our members (meaning less straight party line real life Republicans and Democrats). When Atlasian parties were at their most competitive, we had 5 strong diverse parties along the entire political spectrum.

It's tough to find people willing to form some of the more radical parties. In fact, most of Atlasia is pretty moderate, with a few hard righties and leftists. I mean, I wouldn't mind a two-party esque system if the parties had a meaningful rivalry, but there is barely any real rivalry between the larger SDP and RPP, while the DA and JCP kinda hang out on the sidelines pulling a few strings. It's so easy to pull a few moderates over that any center-left agenda passes easily. How can we fix this, make it more competitive and broad ranging?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Brandon H on April 05, 2009, 08:04:32 PM
So it varies greatly by country and such. Thank you for your replies.

So in Atlasia, we could conceivable at the national level have parties A and B in one coalition and C and D in another, while in a particular region A and C could be in one coalition while B and D are in another.

What if, there were no national parties and parties only existed in a region. It would be cheating, but it would give us more and smaller parties. Just a thought. Probably wouldn't work, but I could be wrong.
---
If we are going to have more diverse parties, then we need more diverse political views of our members (meaning less straight party line real life Republicans and Democrats). When Atlasian parties were at their most competitive, we had 5 strong diverse parties along the entire political spectrum.

It's tough to find people willing to form some of the more radical parties. In fact, most of Atlasia is pretty moderate, with a few hard righties and leftists. I mean, I wouldn't mind a two-party esque system if the parties had a meaningful rivalry, but there is barely any real rivalry between the larger SDP and RPP, while the DA and JCP kinda hang out on the sidelines pulling a few strings. It's so easy to pull a few moderates over that any center-left agenda passes easily. How can we fix this, make it more competitive and broad ranging?

There was a time when any far left agenda was able to pass with little difficulty. But the only way to fix it to get more people, hopefully with less common political views than we currently have.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: afleitch on April 05, 2009, 08:08:49 PM
On an aside different coalitions run councils in Scotland. You can often find Labour and the Tories working together to keep out the SNP (!)


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Smid on April 05, 2009, 08:26:45 PM
On an aside different coalitions run councils in Scotland. You can often find Labour and the Tories working together to keep out the SNP (!)

Back in the day, Griffith University's student union was run by a Liberal-Labor coalition to try to lock out the socialists (Trotskyite Socialists, to be precise), exactly as you've described here. It seems strange but politics can make for strange bed-fellows and sometimes the political strategy of locking out a party is more important than the ideologies involved. Indeed, in the last Victorian election, there were three seats that were marginal, except they were marginal Green v Labor. These seats were all inner city and would have been comfortably won by Labor in a Liberal v Labor split. The Liberal Party didn't run a strong campaign in those seats, however, allowing the Greens vote to pull ahead of the Liberal vote, and the Liberal How To Vote card was 1 Liberal, 2 Green, 3 Labor (well, probably others in between, too, but it had the Greens higher than Labor). The preferences flowed making it a marginal seat and forcing the Labor Party to spend resources defending those seats against the Greens instead of in true left v right marginal seats.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 11, 2009, 09:08:33 AM
The party system is really the best thing Atlasia has going right now.  You have the RPP which accounts for the conservatives, the SDP accounts for hard leftists (although they actually have very few active voters), the DA accounts for centrists and the JCP is a regionalized liberal party.

I will vote against (and a large majority if not all of my party) will vote against any constitution that caps the amount of members in a party.  If the RPP does not have the right to exist the way it currently does, I will be voting against the constitution.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on April 11, 2009, 10:46:24 AM
I will vote against (and a large majority if not all of my party) will vote against any constitution that caps the amount of members in a party.  If the RPP does not have the right to exist the way it currently does, I will be voting against the constitution.

Likewise.  I'm very much against the idea of capping the number of people in a Party.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Franzl on April 11, 2009, 03:10:03 PM
I will vote against (and a large majority if not all of my party) will vote against any constitution that caps the amount of members in a party.  If the RPP does not have the right to exist the way it currently does, I will be voting against the constitution.

Likewise.  I'm very much against the idea of capping the number of people in a Party.

as am I...seems to be an unnecessary restriction.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 11, 2009, 09:58:02 PM
Moving beyond the idea of capping, what role should parties play? How can we establish institutions to make them more a part of the game?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Devilman88 on April 11, 2009, 10:02:31 PM
How does parties play a role in the UK?


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Franzl on April 11, 2009, 11:20:38 PM
Moving beyond the idea of capping, what role should parties play? How can we establish institutions to make them more a part of the game?

Depends greatly on your overall goals.

The easiest way to make parties more influential is to adopt electoral systems that parties can use, namely proportional representation, whether that be by party list or keeping STV entirely. I'm not personally sure where I stand on parties. Obviously, everyone should have the right to form any party they wish with any number of members for any purpose, and it seems quite absurd to suggest otherwise. The only question here is whether we should adopt a constitution that specifically gives parties some sort of power. Take the German electoral system, for example, as the number of seats in parliament are directly influenced by the number of party list votes each party receives. Even if an independent were to win a district, that would have virtually no effect on the balance of power in parliament. In the real world, it's not a system I'm very sympathetic to, but Atlasia isn't quite the same thing.

Parties in Atlasia have lots of potential. In a parliamentary system with some sort of proportional representation, it would be very interesting to watch parties have to form coalitions in order to reach a governing majority, however the growing influence of parties might alienate several members that do not wish to pledge allegiance to any specific political group.

Overall, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on parties, but they're certainly something that we need to consider in our new constitution.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 11, 2009, 11:23:46 PM
So long as there is a PM, I would hope to see a form of government that makes coalitions almost necessary. That said, I wouldn't want to see individual parties lose power because of this. The current system we have actually allows for coalitions, as we sort of see with Senate now of a loose RPP vs. JCP/DA/SPD kind of setup. Perhaps we need not mess with this setup, but simply lend greater importance for that same sort of interaction, i.e. PM and Cabinet positions.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Franzl on April 11, 2009, 11:30:17 PM
So long as there is a PM, I would hope to see a form of government that makes coalitions almost necessary. That said, I wouldn't want to see individual parties lose power because of this. The current system we have actually allows for coalitions, as we sort of see with Senate now of a loose RPP vs. JCP/DA/SPD kind of setup. Perhaps we need not mess with this setup, but simply lend greater importance for that same sort of interaction, i.e. PM and Cabinet positions.

True indeed, we've seen on several cloture votes how support is necessary from all parties...and it has been successful several times.

A "coalition government" doesn't really function in a different matter, it depends on support from the parties that are members of the coalition to advance the government's goals, but it does require a certain amount of partisan loyalty to function properly.

The independence of individual legislators is something I would not really like to lose.

Although...that could lead to many interesting scenarios in which the government suddenly loses confidence and has to dissolve. :) HMMMMM.....!


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 11, 2009, 11:38:09 PM
So long as there is a PM, I would hope to see a form of government that makes coalitions almost necessary. That said, I wouldn't want to see individual parties lose power because of this. The current system we have actually allows for coalitions, as we sort of see with Senate now of a loose RPP vs. JCP/DA/SPD kind of setup. Perhaps we need not mess with this setup, but simply lend greater importance for that same sort of interaction, i.e. PM and Cabinet positions.

True indeed, we've seen on several cloture votes how support is necessary from all parties...and it has been successful several times.

A "coalition government" doesn't really function in a different matter, it depends on support from the parties that are members of the coalition to advance the government's goals, but it does require a certain amount of partisan loyalty to function properly.

The independence of individual legislators is something I would not really like to lose.

Although...that could lead to many interesting scenarios in which the government suddenly loses confidence and has to dissolve. :) HMMMMM.....!

To be honest, this Constitution has no sway on the independence of Senators. Essentially, party lock-step voting depends solely on how much power the party decides to extend over its members and how effective the party leadership is at whipping members. IRL, such as the UK, it is difficult for party members to step out of line because their party leadership can deal severely with them. However, in Atlasia it is quite simple for an ousted party member to simply make a new party or join a different one without real consequences. A small online game makes it too tough to really wield that sort of party power efficiently.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: bgwah on April 11, 2009, 11:46:44 PM
Perhaps we need some guidelines for creating new parties. Something like requiring at least five people signing up within a week of the party's creation for it to officially exist as an Atlasian party. If it fails to find five people within that time frame, it will not become a party. If an official party drops under 5 candidates, then it will cease to exist (and its members shall automatically become independents until they join another official party) within 30 days unless it can get back to 5.

Likewise, perhaps we should actually give some benefit to being an official major party... A major party automatically gets its candidates on the ballot. People would still be able to run as an independent, but would be required to get a number of signatures (say 3 for a regional office, 5 or more for a national office). This is usually how it works in the real world.

A party should only be able to run one candidate for an office (and up to five for the nationwide Senate election). We would have to figure out how primaries would work when there's more than one candidate.

Perhaps we could follow New York's example and have fusion voting--a candidate could run with the endorsement of multiple parties.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Purple State on April 11, 2009, 11:51:07 PM
My only concern would be that we end up with: a) a mess trying to confirm who signed which petition and where and b) not enough candidates managing to get signatures to fill the vacant seats.

I do agree that we should work on certain guidelines though. We can definitely take your ideas as a starting point and go from there.


Title: Re: Party Development
Post by: Hash on April 12, 2009, 08:04:24 AM
How does parties play a role in the UK?

What do you mean?