Party Development

[Hash]

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.

[Hash]

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 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Hash]

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.

[Hash]

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.

[Hash]

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.

[Hash]

How does parties play a role in the UK?

What do you mean?