 |
| |
|
|
Darkness' Edge
|
|
And thank god.
While you were gone, the party system crashed and burned.
A few of us started going independent...Tass, myself, a couple of others. Then, one of the directors (can't remember which one) left P4, and the whole system came crashing down quickly. It's been a better game since that happened.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
You're right. It's just so damn annoying, all those different names between Europe and US for the same political-economic ideas. Ok, the right-winger Archaic. 
Anyway, I thought a libertarian was someone with right-wing economic ideas, and liberal political ideas, while an anarchist is someone with liberal political ideas, but left-wing economic ideas. IIRC that were at least the names that political compass test gave. |
Archaic, "left-wing economic ideas". As far as I've seen he's strongly FM! (he also branded the STEP as loony leftist, presumably meaning he isn't left)
IMO libertarian is neither left nor right, but is talking about a preference for individual rights as opposed to a stronger government. Left or Right is talking about a preference for FM over planned, or privatisation over nationalised industry.
Although if you want to add environmental ideas into the mix aswell, it becomes a whole lot more complicated 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Voltaire
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hercules
Voltaire: the reason for collapse of the political parties you knew back then was one) an attempt to transfer Earth politics (right v left) to this Planet plus the lack of a meaningful vision for the citizens. |
On the lack of vision I will agree; but IMO the collapse of the political party system most likely can be attributed to the fact that they no longer served a purpose as we’ve moved more towards direct democratic decision making through a polling system.
As for your point about an attempt to transfer Earth politics to planet, humans are humans, whether here or Chiron or back on Earth, politics are a function of humans not a function of an environment (though admirably it does play a part).
quote:
Many of the espoused policies were silly, 'Our policy is to explore'. but a genuine attempt I suppose to be different from Earth politics. Other parties wanted Peace. who doesn't. big deal. No party then as far as I could see had a longer term vision. |
And what long term vision would you propose? And how do you distinguish yourself form the previous political parties? In other words what sets you apart form the rest?
quote:
Political parties (sans Corruption) can be good for citizens and for the efficient running of the faction.
At the early/medium part of the game with the collapse of Pol Parties, we polled for everything, almost down to the colour of the loo paper in the gents toilets in the Rec Com. Not only inefficient but boring. This excessive expression of democracy for it is democratic also should mature into new political parties on this planet.
For example on certain issues US Democrats voted with Republicans and vice versa. This simple shows Dem and Rep can hold a different general approaches but can agree on specific issues or short term measures. |
I would strongly disagree that new political parties should emerge; we should scrap the system of party politics all together. We should in effect scrap politics all together if we want to distinguish ourselves from Earth. What purpose would political parties serve that independent candidates for office cannot?
quote:
Voltaire: You can talk Earth politics and political theory, to TKG's two headed cows come home, or you can participate in the now politics of this planet and make a difference for the future. |
More rhetoric, in effect in that last statement you’ve managed to say absolutely nothing in 34 words. Earlier you spoke of no clear vision for the future which the old parties lacked, so then enlighten me and tell me what your vision for the future is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I've been happy to see the EDP slip into the background. We haven't disbanded, but the members haven't put much focus lately on party politics. For the reaons Voltaire has already gone over, parties can be a barrier to democracy. They can also be an energizing force, rallying support and organizing interest. Everyone tries to find a happy medium, and in the last month or so the EDP's happy medium has been to remain inactive, with its members focusing on specific policies rather than party politics. Most other parties have done the same, though the CCCP and the STEP have been more active than we have.
Party politics fit us well during the first two months of the game, but we're moving toward something different now. That doesn't mean thjat parties can't come back, but I doubt we'll have a repeat of the first Commissioner election, with a coalition backing each candidate. Now, people are more inclined to vote for the candidates they see as best for the job, either through support for specific policies or through competence. In a party system, that sort f rational evaluation can take a back seat to loyalty.
So I've seen the demise of parties as largely a good thing, and haven't done much to halt it. The EDP is till around, but its members choose to act outside the party rather than through it. Likewise, new parties such as the STEP are around, and the CCCP is being reorganized. Party politics isn't dead -- it's dormant, choosing to rest for now, but that could change in the future. It's all up to us.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
On a slightly different note, as Voltaire said when discussing the elections something to the effect of 'it seems to be that who the director is doesn't matter that much, since they seem to be glorified polling machines' (with the exceptions of DPO and DTC) Therefore instead of being a representative democracy, we have become almost a 'true' democracy, whereby the citizens en masse actually make the decisions. While I'm sure this will become less of the case in the future with more units to control and more choices to make, is this such a good thing?
Personally I would favour a system whereby we give the directors slightly (and only slightly) more power and have an effective opposition, so that we have more discussion but the final decision isn't always polled (if we don't like the decision, we can always elect someone else next term). I would suggest a 2 party system (FM and non-FM for example, or even having no agenda, just 2 parties of individuals) whereby each party puts up a candidate for each position (so we have contested elections) and there is always an effective opposition to the current directors. And since the parties would be very broad in opinion so there would not be the 'pigeon-holing' of opinions into the party structure.
This is just an idea, but I think it could give us more debate and more activity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Voltaire
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
On a slightly different note, as Voltaire said when discussing the elections something to the effect of 'it seems to be that who the director is doesn't matter that much, since they seem to be glorified polling machines' (with the exceptions of DPO and DTC) Therefore instead of being a representative democracy, we have become almost a 'true' democracy, whereby the citizens en masse actually make the decisions. While I'm sure this will become less of the case in the future with more units to control and more choices to make, is this such a good thing?
Personally I would favour a system whereby we give the directors slightly (and only slightly) more power and have an effective opposition, so that we have more discussion but the final decision isn't always polled (if we don't like the decision, we can always elect someone else next term). I would suggest a 2 party system (FM and non-FM for example, or even having no agenda, just 2 parties of individuals) whereby each party puts up a candidate for each position (so we have contested elections) and there is always an effective opposition to the current directors. And since the parties would be very broad in opinion so there would not be the 'pigeon-holing' of opinions into the party structure.
This is just an idea, but I think it could give us more debate and more activity. |
That wouldn’t be such a bad idea (if you’d managed to get people to agree to it), since as it stands the directors have little power. The problem with political parties is that in the end you need to have a considerable number of active members to have both an effective government and an effective opposition; one of the reasons for the collapse of the old political party system would be the lack of activity as well as no actually structure in the constitution to support a system such as you’re proposing. Right now there is little choice in government, since not many people are running for the position, plus this combined with the fact that it wouldn’t make much of a difference since either a) the polls decide the actions to be taken, or b) the candidates are almost identical in terms of policy (such as is the case in the competition between Drogue and myself).
What we need is viewpoints in opposition, an opposition party that actually wants to do things differently (the Fundamentalist Faction was a good example of this in the early year, but they’ve since died away). The current political atmosphere, though calm, is rather uninteresting.
That wouldn’t be such a bad idea (if you’d managed to get people to agree to it), since as it stands the directors have little power. The problem with political parties is that in the end you need to have a considerable number of active members to have both an effective government and an effective opposition; one of the reasons for the collapse of the old political party system would be the lack of activity as well as no actually structure in the constitution to support a system such as you’re proposing. Right now there is little choice in government, since not many people are running for the position, plus this combined with the fact that it wouldn’t make much of a difference since either a) the polls decide the actions to be taken, or b) the candidates are almost identical in terms of policy (such as is the case in the competition between Drogue and myself).
What we need is viewpoints in opposition, an opposition party that actually wants to do things differently (the Fundamentalist Faction was a good example of this in the early year, but they’ve since died away). The current political atmosphere, though calm, is rather uninteresting.
The point is well taken Drogue, perhaps a reform in the political process is what we need.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-11-2002 12:10
Archaic, libertarian ???
)
|
|