International Northern Union Forum

This forum is dedicated to the International Northern Union.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Discussion of Rules

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1 Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:00 pm

This topic is for the discussion of any rules/regulations that should be established for political parties.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

2 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:08 pm

Personally I believe that to prevent everyone creating their our parties, which would create a congressional chaos, we should begin by allowing the Supreme Council members to create their own first. This way we can establish the major parties, and then all other regional members can either join a party they most closely affiliate with, or then go on to create their own.

I would just hate to see a situation where everyone makes their own immediately, giving us 10 conservative parties, 12 liberal parties, etc.

View user profile

3 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:16 pm

As I've never dealt with political parties myself before, I'm somewhat unsure of how to approach them.

I think the first thing that we should do is place a minimum on the number of members of a party for it to be formally recognized by the government. This is because a "party" of 1 person isn't really a political party, it's just him or her. A party should be large enough to have practical influence on the region. This number can't be too large, though, or it would be too difficult to successfully form a party. I would suggest a minimum of 5 members should be required for a formal political party.

Furthermore, I think that the government should not be responsible for handling party affairs. This should be very agreeable; each party should be responsible for handling its own internal actions, such as the system by which leaders are chosen.

Third, I also think it's important that each nation be registered in only ONE party at one time. It would simply be too confusing and chaotic if everyone joined several different groups.

Lastly, I have a system by which nations should be registered in a political party. It's simple, really: instead of the party or its leaders telling the government who's in its party, if a nation wishes to join a certain party, they should telegram the adviser (because the adviser has the least to do right now, and that would boost activity). Then the adviser would take a list of all the people who joined parties, and, say, every week the adviser would send it to me and I would publish the information on the website. (The main reason why I would rather not receive everyone's telegrams directly is that I recently devised a new recruitment method that involves speaking directly with the person of choice, so I will have a lot of telegrams to deal with as it is.)

Please do post your thoughts on these as well as any ideas of your own.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

4 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:19 pm

@Britain-Prussia: I think it would be more fair to simply place the limit I proposed (or perhaps increase the minimum) above for a party to be recognized. That way, everyone can make and name their own party, but they have to work and be successful at gaining members for it to be recognized. Combined with everyone being allowed in only one party at a time, that should keep the number of parties down and allow those that exist to maintain a considerable member group.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

5 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:21 pm

That's fair enough. I agree with everything you have proposed, and to be honest I can't really see any amendments to them.

Shall we open a new forum section for political parties to be created? Each party can have its own thread, where it'll post its constitution, manifesto, and its members can discuss the party and its direction/aims. That sort of thing.

View user profile

6 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:37 pm

Yes, I was planning on creating another topic for it; I didn't make it yet because I wanted to have regulations set first so everyone knows where the boundaries are.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

7 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:57 pm

As i do have some experience on the matter, I'll add my two cents and add some stuff i think worked really well in the old system i played under.

First of all, Only parties with five or more members will be recognized as legitimate. I think five is a very well-rounded number which works well even if we reach 100 or more nations.

Parties should be able to govern themselves but ideally also be democratic. (Having elections for party head , that is). Not sure how practical this is to enforce though so we'll make this a point of discussion.

As in he real world, allegiance should only be owed to one party, correct.

Lastly, I have a system by which nations should be registered in a political party. It's simple, really: instead of the party or its leaders telling the government who's in its party, if a nation wishes to join a certain party, they should telegram the adviser (because the adviser has the least to do right now, and that would boost activity).
While the adviser doesn't have much to do, this job really seems much more suited for the Chairman, don't you think? Plus: The advisers job is to advise, not really an active role no matter how you see it.

While i understand before that Zwotstyg voiced concerns about parties not being too influential on government, Might we want to entertain the possibility of party elections for the region? I'm not entirely sure how that would work with a three-man SC however. Perhaps we could make party elections the decider of who holds the INUCA rather than Supreme Council? Some GOP shenanigans would be infinitely amusing to watch.

View user profile

8 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:15 pm

@Xin Prussia:
First, about the political parties governing themselves, I think they should be able to manage themselves any way they want, whether it be democratic or not. Most would want to be democratic anyway, because nobody would want to join them otherwise; but, hypothetically, say you had a Monarchist Party that wanted to change the government to a monarchy. They wouldn't want their party to be democratic.

Second, about the adviser, anyone could really do it, it doesn't particularly matter to me; I simply figured that, since the chairman has a little more work to do than the adviser, it would be fair to give the adviser something more to occupy their time.

Third, exactly what do you mean by a party election? The way I had envisioned it was that parties would nominate people from their own party for the government positions and try to hold as many government seats as possible. Then we could just list the parties of the people in power on the website.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

9 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:35 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:As I've never dealt with political parties myself before, I'm somewhat unsure of how to approach them.

I think the first thing that we should do is place a minimum on the number of members of a party for it to be formally recognized by the government. This is because a "party" of 1 person isn't really a political party, it's just him or her. A party should be large enough to have practical influence on the region. This number can't be too large, though, or it would be too difficult to successfully form a party. I would suggest a minimum of 5 members should be required for a formal political party.

Furthermore, I think that the government should not be responsible for handling party affairs. This should be very agreeable; each party should be responsible for handling its own internal actions, such as the system by which leaders are chosen.

Third, I also think it's important that each nation be registered in only ONE party at one time. It would simply be too confusing and chaotic if everyone joined several different groups.
I agree with this - however, I think it might be a good idea to temporarily lower the minimum to three members for a party to be recognized. Considering only 11 people are registered to the board so far, five seems impractical (for now).

Zwotstyg wrote:Lastly, I have a system by which nations should be registered in a political party. It's simple, really: instead of the party or its leaders telling the government who's in its party, if a nation wishes to join a certain party, they should telegram the adviser (because the adviser has the least to do right now, and that would boost activity). Then the adviser would take a list of all the people who joined parties, and, say, every week the adviser would send it to me and I would publish the information on the website. (The main reason why I would rather not receive everyone's telegrams directly is that I recently devised a new recruitment method that involves speaking directly with the person of choice, so I will have a lot of telegrams to deal with as it is.)
I think something else would be easier - a political party is probably going to post its platform on the forums, right? Then they should also have a sign up thread for people to easily sign up on with the list of current members on the top, and that way the list can be kept current without extra bureaucracy.

View user profile

10 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:27 pm

@Othelos: Well, only 11 people are in the forum, but more are active outside it. There are plenty of people to gather up 5 for a political party. We'll also have more from recruitment if things go well.

Furthermore, the political parties would probably do most of their work on the forums, yes, and what you've proposed is indeed fine. We can use that for members who are active on the forums--however, we do still need to have a system for those who are not on the forum, so we should still retain telegramming the chairman so that nations who are not on the forums can join parties.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

11 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:58 pm

But, hypothetically, say you had a Monarchist Party that wanted to change the government to a monarchy. They wouldn't want their party to be democratic.
But would a Monarchist party be constitutional?

Second, about the adviser, anyone could really do it, it doesn't particularly matter to me; I simply figured that, since the chairman has a little more work to do than the adviser, it would be fair to give the adviser something more to occupy their time.
I agree it doesn't really matter either way, so it's up to you.

Third, exactly what do you mean by a party election? The way I had envisioned it was that parties would nominate people from their own party for the government positions and try to hold as many government seats as possible. Then we could just list the parties of the people in power on the website.
There are several ways to go about this. In one of my old regions we had system that worked a little like this: Each party could only put forward one candidate for any particular position. (Only one Democratic Party candidate for WA Delegate for example), So to even be considered for WA delegate you would have to get nominated by your own party. This would not apply to the INUCA, of course.

View user profile

12 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:01 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: Well, only 11 people are in the forum, but more are active outside it. There are plenty of people to gather up 5 for a political party. We'll also have more from recruitment if things go well.
That makes sense.

Zwotstyg wrote:Furthermore, the political parties would probably do most of their work on the forums, yes, and what you've proposed is indeed fine. We can use that for members who are active on the forums--however, we do still need to have a system for those who are not on the forum, so we should still retain telegramming the chairman so that nations who are not on the forums can join parties.
Oh! Right, I just thought of something - as an admin, can you see member's IP addresses on the forums? Otherwise, there's really no other way to make sure people aren't using puppets (other than requiring WA membership).

I think people should be required to sign up to the forums before they can vote/join a party, because otherwise it opens up the system to abuse/voter fraud/etc. Plus, it would encourage people to get involved.

View user profile

13 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:09 pm

@Othelos: About the IP address, I think there is, but I'm not sure how to view it on this particular forum. I would rather assure everyone their privacy and take the risk of puppets; on the forum, there's not much use for a puppet anyway, so I wouldn't worry much about that.

About signing up on the forums, I prefer not to make it mandatory, because then nations would feel somewhat oppressed because they're being coerced to sign up for something they don't wish to. Usually, those who are actually going to do things sign up on the forum anyway; those who don't wouldn't help much if they were on. We also don't want to make people join before they can vote, because that would restrict our voting populace to a relatively small fraction; we also want to hold everyone's rights very high, so I want to protect everyone's right to vote with no requirements. I do, though, give everyone a serious recommendation to join them, because this is where much of the important activity will take place.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

14 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:17 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: About the IP address, I think there is, but I'm not sure how to view it on this particular forum. I would rather assure everyone their privacy and take the risk of puppets; on the forum, there's not much use for a puppet anyway, so I wouldn't worry much about that.

About signing up on the forums, I prefer not to make it mandatory, because then nations would feel somewhat oppressed because they're being coerced to sign up for something they don't wish to. Usually, those who are actually going to do things sign up on the forum anyway; those who don't wouldn't help much if they were on. We also don't want to make people join before they can vote, because that would restrict our voting populace to a relatively small fraction; we also want to hold everyone's rights very high, so I want to protect everyone's right to vote with no requirements. I do, though, give everyone a serious recommendation to join them, because this is where much of the important activity will take place.
I see your point of view. Maybe we could consider signing up the requirement to citizenship? It's not a complicated process to sign up, and it really helps with weeding out puppets and people who either aren't interested or who aren't paying attention.

View user profile

15 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:21 pm

@Othelos: I'm actually against making people sign up for citizenship; I feel that any resident of the region should have a ready say in government, without any signup process. As that is indeed an important issue, though, I will send out a regional telegram and we'll vote on that.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

16 Re: Discussion of Rules on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:45 pm

Citizenship seems a little redundant though, people with absolutely no clout are unlikely to get elected anyways. Those who do are probably registered on the forums or at least very active on the RMB

View user profile

17 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:03 am

I agree, but let's leave that up to the vote and return to the intended discussion. We have several things to cover.

First, to Xin Prussia: About the Monarchist Party, it would indeed be constitutional; there are no restrictions on what people can believe, and if it gains enough power it can amend the constitution to its interests to form a monarchy.

Now, toward everyone else:
Xin Prussia proposed this idea for "party elections":
"There are several ways to go about this. In one of my old regions we had system that worked a little like this: Each party could only put forward one candidate for any particular position. (Only one Democratic Party candidate for WA Delegate for example), So to even be considered for WA delegate you would have to get nominated by your own party. This would not apply to the INUCA, of course."

Furthermore, I can agree to using what Othelos had proposed; so, to keep track of members of the parties, residents NOT on the forums would telegram the chairman as previously proposed. Residents who ARE on the forums can simply join a given party on the party's forum section, however it is set up. If nobody has objections to that, we'll use this.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

18 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:16 am

About your idea I quoted above, Xin Prussia, I like it. It's different, but still fair; it also seems that it would be a motivator for participation, because it would encourage those who want to run for a position to be more active so their party chooses them. I've never seen that system used in any other region either, so I think it would make the region's system more interesting. There is one thing we must work out, though: how will the parties go about deciding their nominees? Because that will either require a lot of voting within the parties or a very complex hierarchy, both of which would be difficult to handle, especially since the government does not take responsibility for managing the affairs of the parties.

I would suggest that a government official--perhaps the chairman, or maybe the delegate--should be responsible for sending a notification out to party leaders a given time before the scheduled start of elections. Then the parties would choose their nominees for all the positions via whatever system they use, so they have their nominees ready when elections begin.

There are also a few edits I would like to propose to the "party election" plan. First, we can't restrict the right of any non-party member to run or nominate. As a result, I think that anybody who is not in a party should be allowed to nominate others who aren't in a party. That way everyone retains the ability to nominate and be nominated. Furthermore, I think that we shouldn't limit parties to only one candidate--that's somewhat restrictive if multiple people aspire to be elected to a certain office. I think that each party should be allowed to have 2 or 3 nominees at maximum for each position (except the INUCA). That gives everyone more opportunity and more choices when they vote.

Thoughts on these?

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

19 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:17 am

Xin Prussia wrote:Citizenship seems a little redundant though, people with absolutely no clout are unlikely to get elected anyways. Those who do are probably registered on the forums or at least very active on the RMB
It's not about clout for elections. It's about making the system more fair, by weeding out puppets. Who's to say I couldn't just move 3 nations here and have them vote for me?

View user profile

20 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:37 am

First, to Xin Prussia: About the Monarchist Party, it would indeed be constitutional; there are no restrictions on what people can believe, and if it gains enough power it can amend the constitution to its interests to form a monarchy.
So the constitution would not protect the democratic process? People could vote themselves into a dictatorship?

Furthermore, I can agree to using what Othelos had proposed; so, to keep track of members of the parties, residents NOT on the forums would telegram the chairman as previously proposed. Residents who ARE on the forums can simply join a given party on the party's forum section, however it is set up. If nobody has objections to that, we'll use this.
I have a slightly different take on the idea: Have the parties send over a party roster of their members. This way we can make sure that inaccuracies are kept to a minimum and the parties have final say on who holds membership.

Because that will either require a lot of voting within the parties or a very complex hierarchy
I figured they would use in-party elections or an appointment system.

I would suggest that a government official--perhaps the chairman, or maybe the delegate--should be responsible for sending a notification out to party leaders a given time before the scheduled start of elections. Then the parties would choose their nominees for all the positions via whatever system they use, so they have their nominees ready when elections begin.
Absolutely.

First, we can't restrict the right of any non-party member to run or nominate. As a result, I think that anybody who is not in a party should be allowed to nominate others who aren't in a party.
Of course, Independents can still run.

Furthermore, I think that we shouldn't limit parties to only one candidate--that's somewhat restrictive if multiple people aspire to be elected to a certain office.
Not at all, they'll all complete in their own in-party politics to become the candidate; then if they win candidacy they will compete against others in the election. Everyone will get a fair chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not about clout for elections. It's about making the system more fair, by weeding out puppets. Who's to say I couldn't just move 3 nations here and have them vote for me?
While i understand the security concerns, there's nothing really stopping you from moving 3 nations AND having them register on the forums. Plus, we're still operating on an invite-only basis as Zwotstyg basically personally invites every nation that comes here so it shouldn't be an issue.

View user profile

21 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 am

@Othelos: But, by the same note, who's to say I can't register all my puppets as citizens? How are we to know who's a puppet and who isn't?

Also, I check everyone who enters the region whom I have not invited. Those who fail to give me an answer (and answers are verified) are brought to the Supreme Council, to decide on ejection. This means that it's currently impossible to have a puppet in the region that I am not aware of.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

22 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:46 am

@Xin Prussia: In order of what you addressed:

First, the constitution we will write will indeed defend democracy. But if democracy if some point decides to favor some dictatorship, they can vote it into power. You do realize, though, that the chances of anything similar to that are virtually impossible.

Second, I like that idea. This is unusual because the idea I like best keeps shifting.

Third, yes, the parties would use whatever system they have established.

Skipping down to party candidacies, I understand the benefits of the competition--do you think it's fair to have a maximum of 2 candidates per party? That would expand opportunities a little and still keep the competition running.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

23 Re: Discussion of Rules on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:23 am

First, the constitution we will write will indeed defend democracy. But if democracy if some point decides to favor some dictatorship, they can vote it into power. You do realize, though, that the chances of anything similar to that are virtually impossible.
I am aware.

Skipping down to party candidacies, I understand the benefits of the competition--do you think it's fair to have a maximum of 2 candidates per party? That would expand opportunities a little and still keep the competition running.
Alright, that seems fair.

View user profile

24 Re: Discussion of Rules on Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:20 pm

Guest


Guest
In reality, all of what you're saying is absolutely great. I'm not quite sure if I can amend anything of what you are saying.

25 Re: Discussion of Rules on Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:38 pm

We will, then, use the party election system agreed upon.

If anyone else has any more ideas, please do post them here. We'll wait for a little while to give everyone a chance to post anything; after that, we will begin forming our political parties.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum