This topic is for the discussion of any rules/regulations that should be established for political parties.
International Northern Union Forum
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.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).
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: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 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.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.)
But would a Monarchist party be constitutional?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.
I agree it doesn't really matter either way, so it's up to you.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.
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.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.
That makes sense.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.
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).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.
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.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.
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?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
So the constitution would not protect the democratic process? People could vote themselves into a dictatorship?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.
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.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 figured they would use in-party elections or an appointment system.Because that will either require a lot of voting within the parties or a very complex hierarchy
Absolutely.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.
Of course, Independents can still run.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.
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.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.
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.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?
I am aware.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.
Alright, that seems fair.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.
Go to page : 1, 2
International Northern Union Forum » Political and Government Center » Political Parties » Discussion of Rules
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|