Party Development

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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?

[Purple State]

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?

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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?

[Purple State]

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?

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.