NationStates Jolt Archive

This, in my opinion, is getting out of hand.

We now have parties with no more than 5 members, more with less, yet they are recognized.

Their manifestos arent longer than many single sections in others. They remain generic, short, and vague as to how they are interpreted.

And, my main complaint, is the fact that I dont believe we can accomodate so many parties and get a correct vote count. Granted, I dont know the full capabilities of PM's anti-voterigging program, but I doubt it can accomodate every Tom Dick and Harry party we now have.

I think the line for party status should be redefined.


I dont advocate removal, but I dont know how we will a) work the percentages in Parliament and b) not get burned for 'noone v0t3d 4 mi p4rty. there were too many!'


I need a nap.

Agreed. There were at least three new party manifestos within the last hour. It's ridiculous. (God damnit I still don't know how to spell that...)

Agreed. There were at least three new party manifestos within the last hour. It's ridiculous. (God damnit I still don't know how to spell that...)

Really? Three in one hour?

No wonder my snooty reserves are drying up! :p

(and welcome! :) )

Agreed.

Damnit, does that mean I can't create my America Owns Party? I had such a good manifesto, too -- all 11 letters of it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that my own party (the not entirely serious one with the long name about Gondwanaland) might be included in the 'enough with the new parties' request.

If so, I'll note in passing in my defence that I wrote and posted the manifesto over a week ago - long before the situation reached its current level - and that I briefly discussed with Ariddia the possibility of forming this particular party before the previous election. This isn't an example of a someone randomly posting a party in the last couple of days just for the hell of it - though I would agree with anyone who felt compelled to suggest that the fact that it took me until today to find a second member perhaps indicates that my party's platform is struggling to find mass acceptance.

All of that said, however, I do in fact agree that the current 2 member threshold is probably too low, and encourages unnecessary party proliferation.

Two easy reforms to limit the number of parties would be:

1) Increase the minimum member number to four or five.

and/or

2) Ban people from signing up as members of more than one party.

Someone should start an anti new party ... party

Someone should start an anti new party ... party

But the Anti-New Party Party would be against itself, becuase the Anti-New Party Party is a new Party too?


"...what?"

But the Anti-New Party Party would be against itself, becuase the Anti-New Party Party is a new Party too?


"...what?"

then they could look in the mirror and argue with themselves.....

nevermind..i am starting my drink more beer party.

I was like the second party to declare:p

Hitler complained about there being too many political parties.



Now someone can use Godwin's Law and add more political parties.

This, in my opinion, is getting out of hand.

We now have parties with no more than 5 members, more with less, yet they are recognized.

Their manifestos arent longer than many single sections in others. They remain generic, short, and vague as to how they are interpreted.


I would tend to agree. Therefore I'm reviving this old rule (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9041641&postcount=170). It should, at the very least, keep the number of new threads down.

In any case, most parties probably won't get into Parliament. All those ending up with less than 4% of the vote will be automatically excluded, as has always been the case.

And, my main complaint, is the fact that I dont believe we can accomodate so many parties and get a correct vote count. Granted, I dont know the full capabilities of PM's anti-voterigging program, but I doubt it can accomodate every Tom Dick and Harry party we now have.

technically, it can accomodate as many parties as you want... hundereds if you wanted.

the problem with having too many parties though is the vote will be too split up and its doubtful any party will reach above a quorum to have any power. it'll have to be lots of party alliances and whatever (whatever the proper word is for that, which i can't think of right now)

we could increase the number of seats in parliament - that would be a short getaround. but it wouldn't stop the sheer fragmentation of the system.

another way could be to have a two-tier voting platform, similar to in France, whereby the top (say) 5 parties get through to a second round of voting. the losers could also go into a second round, but each party would be capped at winning a maximum of 2 seats, or that round only covers 10% of the seats in parliament. if that makes sense.

alternatively, the "silly" parties (which would have to be defined) could be restricted in a similar manner. but i suspect that'd be unpopular :P

it'll have to be lots of party alliances and whatever (whatever the proper word is for that, which i can't think of right now)

Rainbow Alliance IMS.

I vote me make this thread a Party.

Hmmm...


the problem with having too many parties though is the vote will be too split up and its doubtful any party will reach above a quorum to have any power.

Well, I'm hoping the serious parties (and the "main" silly ones) will get far more votes than the tiny silly ones, thereby given us a limited number of parties above 4% each, who can share the 25 seats amongst themselves. Still, there is a risk, yes.

Thanks for handling the voting process, by the way!


we could increase the number of seats in parliament - that would be a short getaround. but it wouldn't stop the sheer fragmentation of the system.


Indeed. I'd rather maintain a system which prevents tiny, unpopular and inactive parties from getting in in the first place.


another way could be to have a two-tier voting platform, similar to in France, whereby the top (say) 5 parties get through to a second round of voting. the losers could also go into a second round, but each party would be capped at winning a maximum of 2 seats, or that round only covers 10% of the seats in parliament. if that makes sense.

I like the idea of a two-round election. (But then, I'm French. :p) Maybe we could let, say, the top eight into the second round, as a compromise? The added positive element is that it might encourage small parties to merge before the election to increase their chance of being in the second round... thereby limiting the number of parties.

I vote me make this thread a Party.
I concur.

People should just yield to MOBRA, anywho.

I disagree with that, make it top ten parties.

Thanks for handling the voting process, by the way!
my pleasure :)

I like the idea of a two-round election. (But then, I'm French. :p) Maybe we could let, say, the top eight into the second round, as a compromise? The added positive element is that it might encourage small parties to merge before the election to increase their chance of being in the second round... thereby limiting the number of parties.

well i guess its largely up to you, being the 'election-master' and all ;)
it could go to parliament and be voted on for a change to the rules, but it'd take too long and half those parties aren't active any more (i guess)

if we did go down that route, i do think a second (limited) "runners up" election could be a nice idea, perhaps for the last two places in parliament (so there are places for 10 parties... even if not all of them win seats. or maybe the runners-up battle it out for 2 seats or something)
my thinking is not due to party-political reasons but because this is entirely a voluntary thing, and it'd be nice to reward the effort people have put into this instead of arbitarily chopping them off after number 8.

if we did go down that route, i do think a second (limited) "runners up" election could be a nice idea, perhaps for the last two places in parliament (so there are places for 10 parties... even if not all of them win seats. or maybe the runners-up battle it out for 2 seats or something)


The problem with that is, it would guarentee seats to unpopular parties, whereas not all of the eight most popular would necessarily win any.