Party Development

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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?

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

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

[afleitch]

On an aside different coalitions run councils in Scotland. You can often find Labour and the Tories working together to keep out the SNP (!)