NationStates Jolt Archive

Current Parliament Standings (based on simplly-rounded, porportional, at-large elections):
NS Classic Liberals 5
Democratic Socialist Party 5
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 2
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 1
Total 25How fitting for #1000!

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I find the process of determining how many seats go to each party to be slightly faulty. Its seems a little unfair that the MRR, though it has almost four times the votes of the Party of Order, has only two seats to their one. I don't suppose it would be possible to revise this in some way?

No. CEOs are overpaid. They are one of about 20 people who make decisions as opposed to (say) 2,000 workers. Yet the management gets paid more overall than the workers. If the 2,000 workers make $30,000 a year each, then it follows that the 20 management should get $3 million a year each. But they don't. They get a whole lot less, and the CEO alone gets a whole lot more. It follows that CEOs are overpaid.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Look at the consequences of a wrong decision. A workewr makes the wrong decision and one item gets messed up. He gets a dressing down and comes back to work the next day suffering no consequences except being pissed off with the supervisor..

A CEO makes a wrong decision and the company makes a loss. The shareholders, including himself as nearly all his salary is in shares, lose money, and he gets fired. He is now a pariah as he has a reputation for making bad decisions, he is hated by a large number of people who lost their jobs due to his mistake, he loses almost all of they 'salary' as it was mostly in bonuses and shares.

So who has to get the decision right? How many people do you trust to make the right decision? only a few. How many positions arte there, more than the number of people who can do the job. Ergo high salary.

Stop pretrending the responsibilities of a production line worker are anything comparable to the responsibilities of a CEO.

(bows)

No. CEOs are overpaid. They are one of about 20 people who make decisions as opposed to (say) 2,000 workers. Yet the management gets paid more overall than the workers. If the 2,000 workers make $30,000 a year each, then it follows that the 20 management should get $3 million a year each. But they don't. They get a whole lot less, and the CEO alone gets a whole lot more. It follows that CEOs are overpaid.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Again when any 100 of those workers have the same effect on the stock price as that one CEO, then you will have an argument. Until then I will just sit comfortably on the fact that people are paid according to their value. You haven't shown this not to be true. You have not established that they are underpaid. In fact, you've only made up things about if there were a thousand CEOs. CEOs get paid according to their value to the company, as do workers. There's a name for it, it's called capitalism and it doesn't exploit anyone. If a worker provides a service to the company that makes the company $3 million a year in profit and that worker demands $1 million a year in payment or he's leaving, do you think the company would let him leave? Workers have the ability to make more money by increasing their value. CEOs know this and did it. You want to punish them for this fact. Why would a CEO take on the stress and risk involved in being a CEO for less than what his value is? He wouldn't and doesn't.

Look at the consequences of a wrong decision. A workewr makes the wrong decision and one item gets messed up. He gets a dressing down and comes back to work the next day suffering no consequences except being pissed off with the supervisor..

A CEO makes a wrong decision and the company makes a loss. The shareholders, including himself as nearly all his salary is in shares, lose money, and he gets fired. He is now a pariah as he has a reputation for making bad decisions, he is hated by a large number of people who lost their jobs due to his mistake, he loses almost all of they 'salary' as it was mostly in bonuses and shares.

So who has to get the decision right? How many people do you trust to make the right decision? only a few. How many positions arte there, more than the number of people who can do the job. Ergo high salary.

Stop pretrending the responsibilities of a production line worker are anything comparable to the responsibilities of a CEO.

*Gives him a high five*

Exactly my point. I knew if we both talked enough we were bound to agree on something ;)

I find the process of determining how many seats go to each party to be slightly faulty. Its seems a little unfair that the MRR, though it has almost four times the votes of the Party of Order, has only two seats to their one. I don't suppose it would be possible to revise this in some way?

Anyone?

Anyone?

It is the problem of rounding and the relatively low number of seats.

The terms of the election were laid out at the start, and can not be changd half way through. Any future election may have different terms. What we need to do though is to get enough people voting to eliminate the two joke parties altogether. (i.e. 1.99% or less)

It is the problem of rounding and the relatively low number of seats.

The terms of the election were laid out at the start, and can not be changd half way through. Any future election may have different terms. What we need to do though is to get enough people voting to eliminate the two joke parties altogether. (i.e. 1.99% or less)

I understand. And I suppose I must agree that changing the rules half way throught the election wouldn't be right. I have a question though; if we are calculating 4%=1 seat, then shouldn't this in all fairness mean that anything less than 4% should mean 0 seats? It seems we are rounding down, when I think maybe we should be rounding up. Its just kind of strange that a party with only half of the prescribed 4% of votes gets a seat anyway, on the merit, apparently, that someone bothered to vote for them. I'm not trying to be a jerk, please don't get me wrong. But I do think that this issue needs to be talked out.

NS Classic Liberals all the way!

Whoo!

Sorry, Guys. My mistake. She said at the start you need 4% to get one seat. Should have read it more thoroughly. Think this should be right, now, tho Here we go:

NS Classic Liberals 6
Democratic Socialist Party 5
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 2
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 0
Total 25

What I did was simply shift everything down 2% and gave everything a sufficient factor to get up to 25 seats. I don't think it's possible to get 4% requirement to get one seat without causing a shortage in seats--I'll just let the powers that be decide.

:confused: (crawls into a hole)

http://img240.echo.cx/img240/2406/marxfonz2to.jpg
ayyyy

Hypothetical situation

25 seats 4% of the vote per seat.

Party___%______No Seats
A______27________6
B______23________5
C______19________4
D______11________2
E_______7________1
F_______7________1
G_______7________1
H_______3________0
I_______ 3________0
J_______3________0

TOTAL__100______20

But there were 25. Proportioanl representation has an inherent problem with this where there are a relatively low number of seats. In the case given, rounding up or down would not help as this would give 30 seats or 20 seats as the distance from threshold for the next seat is equal. The only solution here is for alliances tro form, with seats being allocated to the alliance, rather than to the party. Even then, there is a chance that it will not work out to 25.

Ariddia - We need some kind of ruling here.

Sorry, Guys. My mistake. She said at the start you need 4% to get one seat. Should have read it more thoroughly. Think this should be right, now, tho Here we go:

NS Classic Liberals 6
Democratic Socialist Party 5
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 2
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 0
Total 25

What I did was simply shift everything down 2% and gave everything a sufficient factor to get up to 25 seats. I don't think it's possible to get 4% requirement to get one seat without causing a shortage in seats--I'll just let the powers that be decide.

:confused: (crawls into a hole)

Alien Born: this is the model I had in mind.

But there were 25. Proportioanl representation has an inherent problem with this where there are a relatively low number of seats. In the case given, rounding up or down would not help as this would give 30 seats or 20 seats as the distance from threshold for the next seat is equal. The only solution here is for alliances tro form, with seats being allocated to the alliance, rather than to the party. Even then, there is a chance that it will not work out to 25.

Ariddia - We need some kind of ruling here.

Why not just up the number of seats to reduce the thresholds needed?

Have 50 seats.

http://img260.echo.cx/img260/4135/kittenkill0lg.jpg
God's already had to kill 419 kittens. Please don't make him have to kill any more, he's a busy man

Yes. This is a "stage" in marxism - he uses the same word. It is complete eradication of private property, in his view. The next step is communism - since this is the ultimate goal, marxist ideology took the name "communism".
It's more than a nuance - it's the basis for every peculiar thing in marxism. I know, it is confusing.
The countries coln't have been "communist" other than in ideal (read my previous posts, please) - the ultimate stage does not allow the state to exist anymore.

Not to be confused with socialist ideology - as trusted by social democratic parties. A world of difference! They see the ultimate goal in socialism, and this is understood as much less rigid than its corresponding "stage" in marxism.

KEEP IN MIND: I AM A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT MYSELF, but we have to state these issues.
Hope I didn't seem condescending.

Well, still, they were communists and a communist party. I think it would have been better if you had said they hadn't achieved PURE communism- it's unfair to socialists to put them in the same boat as communists.

Why not just up the number of seats to reduce the thresholds needed?

Have 50 seats.

I think it should remain 25 seats- I'm not sure if PoO is entirely serious about politics. Plus, we can't change the election guidelines in the middle of the election.

DHomme: Seeing as how we have room for only a couple of hundred posts left in this thread before it is locked (1300 is the lock number, I believe) and still a couple of days left to use, it would be nice if you didn't waste space by posting every poster that you cook up. As far as I know, there's a thread made specificly for that. Why not utilize it?

Back to Topic: I was rather surprised that such a low number of seats was chosen myself. 100 would make sense to me, but why only 25?

Well, still, they were communists and a communist party. I think it would have been better if you had said they hadn't achieved PURE communism- it's unfair to socialists to put them in the same boat as communists.
I'm not ptting them in the same boat. Again, socialism something else in the marxist vocabulary. Socialists and (all possible kinds of) communists have been mostly at each other's throats (the german bolshevik risings in 1918 in Germany failed because the socialist government made fought them bitterly - and with just cause, in my opinion).

I'm not ptting them in the same boat. Again, socialism something else in the marxist vocabulary. Socialists and (all possible kinds of) communists have been mostly at each other's throats (the german bolshevik risings in 1918 in Germany failed because the socialist government made fought them bitterly - and with just cause, in my opinion).

I still think it's a bit nitpicky though, but I suppose it's just different opinions in the end.

DHomme: Seeing as how we have room for only a couple of hundred posts left in this thread before it is locked (1300 is the lock number, I believe) and still a couple of days left to use, it would be nice if you didn't waste space by posting every poster that you cook up. As far as I know, there's a thread made specificly for that. Why not utilize it?

Back to Topic: I was rather surprised that such a low number of seats was chosen myself. 100 would make sense to me, but why only 25?
pht. Fine

I still think it's a bit nitpicky though, but I suppose it's just different opinions in the end.
Yeah, I guess. Sorry it got so entagled.
I was just arguing against over-simpifying.

The lock number of 1300 only applies to social threads. I do not think it would apply to this, but I will check with duh mods.

(comes out of hole)
OK, until we get a ruling, I will provide running totals for both ways.
This fills all 25 seats while ensuring that parties lacking quorum would not gain seats.

NS Classic Liberals 6
Democratic Socialist Party 6
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
"Up yours!" Party 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 0
Party of Order 0
Total 25

This is filling the seats using traditional rounding.

NS Classic Liberals 5
Democratic Socialist Party 5
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
"Up yours!" Party 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 1
Total 25

Peace out!

I was feeling even more 'altruistic', so I made the DSP a poster, too.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/dsp1.gif

:D

Party results, direct vote
http://www.fredvogels.org/images/NSpolparties.JPG

Key:
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party - Trotskyist
United Democratic Communist Party - UDCP
Democratic Socialist Party - Dem. Soc.
Cult of Tink Party - Tink
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance - MaOBRA
Party of Whatever Works - W.W.
Party of Order - Order
NS Classic Liberals - Liberal
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans - Republican
"Up yours!" Party - Up Yours

Parties are arranged on a left/right scale as percieved by me after reading the respective party manifesto's. In addition to arranging them on a left-right scale I have subdivided the parties into three main groups: an economically liberal group (blueish colours) and an economically left-wing group (reddish colours). Green parties are in the middle.

Also, I will be going on holiday in France tomorrow and will be back wednesday. Expect no updates before then ;)

In addition, I would like to point out that anonymous polls = massive fraud. But hey.

0wnij! The NS Classic liberals have the lead!

VOTE CLASSIC LIBERAL
http://www.digitalfilmmaker.com/Bang/images/VULTURE.jpg
And help that vulture feast on the flesh of innocents.

P.S. I have no photoshop skills, but could a comrade turn the above post into a campaign poster, to return the favour to the liberals?

Constantinopolis, if I may ask where was that picture taken?

VOTE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS

In the southern Sudanese hamlet of Ayod, March 1993. This picture would win Kevin Carter the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography.

Carter committed suicide not long after winning that Pulitzer.

It's not so easy to be a selfish bastard when you see the effects of your selfishness, is it? Every classic liberal scum should have to spend one month in the poorest regions of Africa.

Down With Democracy!!

(is drawn back in)

Thought I might put a rough idea of where everyone stands on the issues (I only included standings of the eight parties with a current quorum):

Social Control:
Trotskyist Party
Meritocratic Republicans
Cult of Tink
Communist Party
Democratic Socialist
"Whatever Works" Party
"Up Yours" Party
Classic Liberal Party

Economic Sontrol:
Communist Party
Trotskyist Party
Democratic Socialist Party
Cult of Tink
"Whatever Works" Party
Meritocratic Representatve Republicans
Classical Liberal Party
"Up Yours" party

Political Process Control:
Cult of Tink
"Up Yours" Party
Troskyist Party Manifesto
Meritocratic Representative Republicans
Communist Party
"Whatever Works" Party
Democratic Socialist Party
Classic Liberal Party

Overall analysis:
Cult of Tink - Suprisingly moderate on the issues, but autocratic as hell

Democratic Socialist - Right behind populists on economic control, but moderate to limited on economic and quite democratic

NS Classic Liberals - Very lax on both Social And Economic issues. Notably does not allow border patrol.

Meritocratic Republicans - A mix of libertarianism and facism, as best as i can see. Requires 2 years of economic service before people are allowed to vote.
Party of Whatever Works- Advocates a flat tax, but quite a pro-government platform on most economic issues. Rether lax socially.

Trotskyist Revolutionary Party - Firm government control on both Social and Economic issues, and an advocate for an overthrow of the political process (although not clear as to exactly what it should be replaced with).

Communist Party - Advocates near complete economic control, while being somewhat lax socially. Democratic process is quite open nominally, but it is not clear as to what the role of the Communist party would be in controlling the agenda).

"Up Yours" Party - very close to the Classic Liberals on most issues, but ties with Tink for autocracy.

and a final posting of the parliamentary elction status:

Quorum tally:
NS Classic Liberals 6
Democratic Socialist Party 6
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
"Up yours!" Party 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 0
Party of Order 0
Total 25

Standard rounding tally:
NS Classic Liberals 5
Democratic Socialist Party 5
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
"Up yours!" Party 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 1
Total 25

Down With Democracy!!
So don't vote then. It is not compulsory you know.

So don't vote then. It is not compulsory you know.
I havn't voted. AND I NEVER WILL COMMUNSIM OR DEATH!!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCPbgcompressed.jpg

I havn't voted. AND I NEVER WILL

Bully for you. Have you had your say now, yes? Fine then I will say good night and show you the way out. Bye now.

Bully for you. Have you had your say now, yes? Fine then I will say good night and show you the way out. Bye now.
I am entitled to express my oppinion comrade

Meritocratic Republicans - A mix of libertarianism and facism, as best as i can see. Requires 2 years of economic service before people are allowed to vote.

Not necessarily economic- it also includes defense. I don't think it's fascist because all other rights are very strongly protected and many decisions are left up to more local legislatures so they can choose for themselves. We allow the people on a local level to decide their own stance on social topics instead of dragging it into an unfair nationally-imposed level.

NS Classic Liberals - Very lax on both Social And Economic issues. Notably does not allow border patrol.

Where did you get that from?

Border Control
All people shall be at liberty to enter or leave the nation as they see fit. All persons so doing will have their identity confirmed and any convicted criminals shall be detained.

a) Persons entering the country that are convicted of crimes in other nations shall be extradited to that nation if this crime would also have been a crime in our nation.

b) There shall be no restriction on legal employment within our borders. Any person legally entering may attempt to obtain gainful employment.

c) Any person entering without passing through border control shall be presumed to be a criminal and will be returned to their nation of origin when apprehended.

We have border control, we simply allow law abiding individuals freedom of entry and exit.

I am entitled to express my oppinion comrade

So you want the benefits of the system you oppose. By opposing democracy you have opposed your own right to express your opinion. Commies never get the hang of it do they?

Don't feed the troll, Alien Born.

I havn't voted. AND I NEVER WILL COMMUNSIM OR DEATH!!
Look at our manifesto, brother. We argue revolutionary politics

Don't feed the troll, Alien Born.

I was more making a criticism of communism that the 'troll' opened the door to. Or are you worried that the 'troll' will expose more weaknesses in the communist ethos.

Trotskyist Revolutionary Party - Firm government control on both Social and Economic issues, and an advocate for an overthrow of the political process (although not clear as to exactly what it should be replaced with).

You've completely misjudged us man. Socially we're very lax- we allow drug use, permit homosexuality, abortion, etc.
We say essentially, you don't have the right to control other people and enslave them to your whims. The irony being that the working class needs to use violence to realise this

You've completely misjudged us man. Socially we're very lax- we allow drug use, permit homosexuality, abortion, etc.
We say essentially, you don't have the right to control other people and enslave them to your whims. The irony being that the working class needs to use violence to realise this
That did strike me as odd. Perhaps you could make a not at the beginning about that.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM
NS CLASSIC LIBERALS

So you want the benefits of the system you oppose. By opposing democracy you have opposed your own right to express your opinion. Commies never get the hang of it do they?You can express your opinion in systems other than a democracy (for instance, a socialist or capitalist nation with laws allowing freedom of speech, even if not allowing elections).

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You can express your opinion in systems other than a democracy (for instance, a socialist or capitalist nation with laws allowing freedom of speech, even if not allowing elections).

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

That's kind of like being allowed to talk to a brick wall- you're allowed to do the action of discussion, but not be able to do what it is truly meant for.

Meritocratic Republicans - A mix of libertarianism and facism, as best as i can see. Requires 2 years of economic service before people are allowed to vote.

If you actually took the time to research our beliefs, you would see that we are very for democracy, and very against dictatorship. What differentiates us from the rest in this regard is that we deny the soundness of universal sufferage. We feel that a citizen must make a truly altruistic effort to earn the right to suffrage, he must prove his merit. Hence, Meritocratic. We believe that this allows us to limit suffrage to those who have demonstrated a willingness to serve their nation, a healthy patriotism, and an invested personal, perhaps spiritual interest in the welfare of their society. If this to you characterises Fascism, then I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what Fascism is, and perhaps of politics in general.

In 1996 in the US manufacturing industry for every 100 dollars worth of products each individual made, they were paid 17 dollars. Seems pretty exploitative for me

How much do you think the individual would keep after paying for his machinery, warehousing, and distribution?

This does not even come close to damning evidence, but I would like to see where you pulled this information from.

We feel that a citizen must make a truly altruistic effort to earn the right to suffrage, he must prove his merit. Hence, Meritocratic. We believe that this allows us to limit suffrage to those who have demonstrated a willingness to serve their nation, a healthy patriotism, and an invested personal, perhaps spiritual interest in the welfare of their society. If this to you characterises Fascism, then I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what Fascism is, and perhaps of politics in general.
It is the logic of Italian, Portuguese, Spanish fascism: limited suffrage, according to "participation in society". Almost the same rethoric.

It is the logic of Italian, Portuguese, Spanish fascism: limited suffrage, according to "participation in society". Almost the same rethoric.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Fascist Italy and Spain (don't know about Portugal) there was no freedom of speech, right to gather, right to protest, freedom of press, or free and open elections. Whatever voting was done was defunct seeing as how the nation was ruled by a single party dictatorship anyhow, and to have any say in any matter, you most cetainly had to be a member of said party. We of the MRR believe in freedom of speech, freedom of press, and government elected by democratic means. You will also notice that nowhere is it mentioned that we would reduce candidacy during elections to one party. We of the MRR firmly believe in the democratic system of self governance. However, we also feel that universal suffrage is detremental to democracy, that some kind of standard should be set as to what kind of citizen be given the right to vote. Our system is open to all, we do not refuse suffrage according to color, creed, gender, education, or economic status. I find it laughable that you would draw parallels between our manifesto and "fascist retoric". If you would label us fascists, then you can go ahead and label any party that uses the words "working class" or "workers rights" in their manifesto as communist. It is, I'm sure, a comfortable generalization for you, a nice way to discredit what we stand for. Unfortunatly, it is also a blatant inaccuracy, which can be seen by any who take the time to read our program.

Ariddia - We need some kind of ruling here.

Well I can't change the system half-way through. What I've been doing so far when calculating estimates is see how many seats (fractionally) each party would get, then round it to the nearest, and adjust where necessary to get 25 seats total. Thus, the party whose seats had been adjusted by the biggest margin would then be re-adjusted if needed. (But that never seems to happen).

I originally had said that you need 4% in order to get one seat, so to remain consistent that would mean you can't get a seat if you're below 4% - except if such an adjustment is made necessary to round things up to 25 seats.

To give you an example with the current situation:
COTP: 2.79 seats => 3 seats
DSP: 4.99 seats => 5 seats
MOBRA: 0.97 seats => 0 seat
NSCL: 5.15 seats => 5 seats
MRR: 2.42 seats => 2 seats
Party of Order: 0.65 seats => 0 seat
PWW: 2.04 seats => 2 seats
RTP: 1.07 seats => 1 seat
UDCP: 2.74 seats => 3 seats
"Up yours!": 2.2 seats => 2 seats

Which gives us only 23 seats, which is a problem. If we then round up MOBRA & the Party of Order to 1 seat each, we get a total of 25.

Now, that goes against the principle of quorum, but it's the only fair solution I can see. The only other solution would be to round up the parties closest to gaining an extra seat, which in this instance would be the MRR & "Up yours!", but that would be much more unfair (especially in the latter case, where "Up yours!" is only one fifth of the way to that extra seat!) than rounding up the two parties below 4%.

So for the sake of sheer mathematical and representational fairness, the standing rule is that of rounding up seats even if that means going from 0 to 1.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Fascist Italy and Spain (don't know about Portugal) there was no freedom of speech, right to gather, right to protest, freedom of press, or free and open elections. Whatever voting was done was defunct seeing as how the nation was ruled by a single party dictatorship anyhow, and to have any say in any matter, you most cetainly had to be a member of said party. We of the MRR believe in freedom of speech, freedom of press, and government elected by democratic means. You will also notice that nowhere is it mentioned that we would reduce candidacy during elections to one party. We of the MRR firmly believe in the democratic system of self governance. However, we also feel that universal suffrage is detremental to democracy, that some kind of standard should be set as to what kind of citizen be given the right to vote. Our system is open to all, we do not refuse suffrage according to color, creed, gender, education, or economic status. I find it laughable that you would draw parallels between our manifesto and "fascist retoric". If you would label us fascists, then you can go ahead and label any party that uses the words "working class" or "workers rights" in their manifesto as communist. It is, I'm sure, a comfortable generalization for you, a nice way to discredit what we stand for. Unfortunatly, it is also a blatant inaccuracy, which can be seen by any who take the time to read our program.
I was just adressing this one issue. Of course you allow multipartitism, but isn't it a big step towards restriction to say that you all can agree on what the duties of citizen are, other than those specified by the social contract?
You will be enforcing an arbitrary sistem, with a distinction between lesser and fuller citizens, that would ultimately be the legal basis for a recourse to rule through/by a minority - a corporate state. In this sense it is "Fascist rethoric".
I did not imply that you are racist, however. Racism is not a requirement for fascism (outside of Nazism and some central/east European varieties, and Italy from a certain point on).
I also did NOT imply that you are (crypto-)fascists. I am just saying that the model was enforced before, with the same basis. Not only in fascist countries, but also in other authoritarian or rigid ones - in pre-WWI Romania, you wouldn't get proper representation unless you had a certain annual income.

Now, that goes against the principle of quorum, but it's the only fair solution I can see. The only other solution would be to round up the parties closest to gaining an extra seat, which in this instance would be the MRR & "Up yours!", but that would be much more unfair (especially in the latter case, where "Up yours!" is only one fifth of the way to that extra seat!) than rounding up the two parties below 4%.

So for the sake of sheer mathematical and representational fairness, the standing rule is that of rounding up seats even if that means going from 0 to 1.

Obviously I'm biased, but I can see little merit in the platforms of the MOBRA and PoO; I find it nearly impossible to take them seriously as parties and given the nature of their 'beliefs' it seems to me that they're just fucking around [particularly MOBRA]. The people who are voting for them, I would guess, aren't particularly interested in the results.

Granted, this isn't a particularly serious or earth-shattering occurance, being a mock election on an internet forum. However, it does strike me as being one of the more interesting and engaging of the NS General "fads," if you will. In the interests of constructive debate, I would have left the PoO and MOBRA out of the election entirely. Given how close the race is, it seems exponentially more exasperating to note that the MOBRA/PoO seat is likely to be the most important seat in Parliament.

Obviously I'm biased, but I can see little merit in the platforms of the MOBRA and PoO; I find it nearly impossible to take them seriously as parties and given the nature of their 'beliefs' it seems to me that they're just fucking around [particularly MOBRA]. The people who are voting for them, I would guess, aren't particularly interested in the results.

Granted, this isn't a particularly serious or earth-shattering occurance, being a mock election on an internet forum. However, it does strike me as being one of the more interesting and engaging of the NS General "fads," if you will. In the interests of constructive debate, I would have left the PoO and MOBRA out of the election entirely. Given how close the race is, it seems exponentially more exasperating to note that the MOBRA/PoO seat is likely to be the most important seat in Parliament.

I agree with you, but those two parties met the requirements to stand, and people have voted for them. We can't just dismiss them on the basis that they're not serious parties. If that were the case, the Loonies would not be recognised as an official party in UK politics.

In all fairness, I can't discriminate between parties, on whatever criteria.

I agree with you, but those two parties met the requirements to stand, and people have voted for them. We can't just dismiss them on the basis that they're not serious parties. If that were the case, the Loonies would not be recognised as an official party in UK politics.

In all fairness, I can't discriminate between parties, on whatever criteria.
Yeah, this is pretty much the answer I expected. Makes enough sense I guess, but it's a damn shame "legitimacy" wasn't a criteria for running. If I were running things, I would prefer to leave out those who attempt to make a mockery of my ideas.

Say what you will about the tenets of Trotskyism, at least it's an ethos.

Why dont we make a thread where a representative from each party can put across like a four sentence statement accompanied by their favourite poster? It would be pretty short and I think everybody would be able to get a taste of what the different parties are like without having to read through long manifestos or rely on that post by Salalador where we are basically called Stalinists.

Of course you allow multipartitism, but isn't it a big step towards restriction to say that you all can agree on what the duties of citizen are, other than those specified by the social contract?

I don't understand the question.

You will be enforcing an arbitrary sistem, with a distinction between lesser and fuller citizens, that would ultimately be the legal basis for a recourse to rule through/by a minority - a corporate state. In this sense it is "Fascist rethoric".

I think you have grossly misinterpreted our program.

I did not imply that you are racist, however. Racism is not a requirement for fascism (outside of Nazism and some central/east European varieties, and Italy from a certain point on).

Thank you for educating me, I am aware that a fascist state can exist without racism. That racism has been a predominant feature in almost all fascist regimes is another thing altogether. This kind of reminds me of the commies that are always arguing that communism does not necessrily have to lead to single party dictatorship. Indeed, it doesn't have to, but it very consistantly does. And I wasn't claiming that you were calling our party racist, I was pointing out the obvious difference between our own ideals, and those of the stereotypical fascist regime. Blatant differences which it seems you missed.

I also did NOT imply that you are (crypto-)fascists.

Oh? I thought this whole thing started with a fascist label being placed on the MRR. Could've fooled me.

I am just saying that the model was enforced before, with the same basis.

I have yet to see you present a concrete example to this wild hypothesis that the MRR functions on the same "basis" as Fascist regimes.

Not only in fascist countries, but also in other authoritarian or rigid ones -

Even in all of today's democracies, there are strict regulations which apply to citizenship and the right to vote. I would think that giving someone the right to vote in reward for participating in a government regulated service program is much fairer than allowing people to vote based on their place of birth, or the X amount of years they have lived somewhere.

in pre-WWI Romania, you wouldn't get proper representation unless you had a certain annual income.

Yes, well, it was a system based on the old Roman Republican model. You had to have a stake in the state in order to have a say in state affairs. But this is neither here nor there. What is it that you are trying to say exactly. Initialy, it seemed that you were defending the Fascist label by claiming that any nation which restricts suffrage in exchange for service employs "fascist retoric". Now you are talking about seemingly non-Fascist states, and their classic republican tendencies.....or something. What's your point?

I agree with you, but those two parties met the requirements to stand, and people have voted for them. We can't just dismiss them on the basis that they're not serious parties. If that were the case, the Loonies would not be recognised as an official party in UK politics.

In all fairness, I can't discriminate between parties, on whatever criteria.
What on Earth are you talking about MOBRA is serious Deadly SERIOUS!
All the other Parties are Phony Balony (http://www.pete-online.us/Images2/Kerry/Kerry.Phony.Baloney.jpg) and its slightly disappointing that one would vote for them!

So for the sake of sheer mathematical and representational fairness, the standing rule is that of rounding up seats even if that means going from 0 to 1.

I still don't see how it is fair that the PoO have only a fourth of the MRR votes, but manage to attain 1 seat to our two. Basically, what this seems to imply is that every vote cast for PoO is worth two votes cast for the MRR. How is adhearing to such a formula "representational fairness"?

Why dont we make a thread where a representative from each party can put across like a four sentence statement accompanied by their favourite poster? It would be pretty short and I think everybody would be able to get a taste of what the different parties are like without having to read through long manifestos or rely on that post by Salalador where we are basically called Stalinists.

Yes, because God forbid that people actually take the time to read our manifestos and make an educated decision before voting. Better to throw a few colorful posters at them and hope to Christ they are impressed enough to cast a vote. :rolleyes:

This may be the strategy you employ, DHomme, but I would rather people chose to support my party for its ideas rather than its pretty pictures. Then again, I can back up my party's program pretty well, so I guess that makes a difference as well. Please refrain from advising that we dumb down this electoral process and treat people like cretins. I think we all get enough of that during real world election campaigns.

I still don't see how it is fair that the PoO have only a fourth of the MRR votes, but manage to attain 1 seat to our two. Basically, what this seems to imply is that every vote cast for PoO is worth two votes cast for the MRR. How is adhearing to such a formula "representational fairness"?

I'm not saying it's ideal. :( But

a) I can't see a way to make it any fairer, and

b) I can't exactly change the way it works part-way through the election!


[Editted in, because we're getting dangerously close to 1300 posts:]

Yes, because God forbid that people actually take the time to read our manifestos and make an educated decision before voting. Better to throw a few colorful posters at them and hope to Christ they are impressed enough to cast a vote. :rolleyes:

This may be the strategy you employ, DHomme, but I would rather people chose to support my party for its ideas rather than its pretty pictures. Then again, I can back up my party's program pretty well, so I guess that makes a difference as well. Please refrain from advising that we dumb down this electoral process and treat people like cretins. I think we all get enough of that during real world election campaigns.

I agree. We shouldn't encourage people not to read the manifestos.

By the way, if ever we do hit 1300 posts before the election is over (though we should make sure not to!), we can always switch over to this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419066).

I'm not saying it's ideal. :( But

a) I can't see a way to make it any fairer, and

b) I can't exactly change the way it works part-way through the election!


[Editted in, because we're getting dangerously close to 1300 posts:]



I agree. We shouldn't encourage people not to read the manifestos.

By the way, if ever we do hit 1300 posts before the election is over (though we should make sure not to!), we can always switch over to this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419066).

I understand, but you see what I'm saying. I think that, for future elections, it would be easiest to simply increase the number of seats to 100. 1%=1 seat, no problem. Of course, rounding would still have to be done, but it would not have as profound an effect on the results as is currently the case. Something to consider. :)

Oh, and by the way, it has been confirmed that this thread will not be locked at 1300, courtesy of the super friendly mod squad. :)
So, at least we have that issue resolved.

I understand, but you see what I'm saying. I think that, for future elections, it would be easiest to simply increase the number of seats to 100. 1%=1 seat, no problem. Of course, rounding would still have to be done, but it would not have as profound an effect on the results as is currently the case. Something to consider. :)

*nods*

Indeed. The main reason why I kept the number of seats as low as 25 was because some parties have relatively few members, and I didn't want us to end up with a situation where parties would have more seats than members, and we'd end up with a Parliament full of empty seats.

Still, 50 could be a possibility. Something to consider, indeed.

The so-called 'serious' parties cannot complain when people vote for what they perceive to be a 'joke' party over them. That is the choice of the electorate. The reason MOBRA have votes is because people wanted them to win. Full stop. Cancelling their votes is ridiculous.

Anyway, I can propose a rounding system. Simply round a party's number of seats up if the decimal is above half, and down if below. If the number does not work out at 25, then give the seats to the party who were nearest to getting an extra seat. So...

NS Classic Liberals > 20.64% > 5.16 seats
Democratic Socialist Party > 20.00% > 5.00 seats
United Democratic Communist Party > 11.28% > 2.82 seats
Cult of TInk Party > 11.06% > 2.765 seats
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans > 9.57% > 2.3925 seats
"Up yours!" Party > 8.72% > 2.18 seats
Party of Whatever Works > 8.09% > 2.0225 seats
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party > 4.26% > 1.065 seats
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance > 3.83% > 0.9575 seats
Party of Order > 2.55% > 0.6375 seats

Rounding these either to the nearest whole number gives us:

NS Classic Liberals: 5 seats
Democratic Socialist Party: 5 seats
United Democratic Communist Party: 3 seats
Cult of TInk: 3 seats
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans: 2 seats
"Up yours!" Party: 2 seats
Party of Whatever Works: 2 seats
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party: 1 seat
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance: 1 seat
Party of Order: 1 seat

That gives us 25 seats! No problem.

The total vote share for the economically liberal parties (Classic Liberals, Meritocratic Republicans, and "Up Yours!") is 38.93%, and they would take 9 seats, giving a share of parliament of 36%. The liberals would be under-represented.

The total vote share for the economically centrist parties (Whatever Works, MOBRA, Party of Order) is
14.47%, and they would take 4 seats, giving a share of parliament of 16%. The centrists would be over-represented.

The total vote share for the economically left-wing parties (Democratic Socialists, UDCP, Cult of TInk and Revolutionary Trotskyists) is 46.6%, and they would take 12 seats, giving a share of parliament of 48%. The left-wingers would be over-represented.


The left-wingers nearly have a majority, but it's doubtful whether the Democratic Socialists would even work with the Communists... how anyone could form a coalition out of this is anyone's guess. :)

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

Yes, because God forbid that people actually take the time to read our manifestos and make an educated decision before voting. Better to throw a few colorful posters at them and hope to Christ they are impressed enough to cast a vote. :rolleyes:

This may be the strategy you employ, DHomme, but I would rather people chose to support my party for its ideas rather than its pretty pictures. Then again, I can back up my party's program pretty well, so I guess that makes a difference as well. Please refrain from advising that we dumb down this electoral process and treat people like cretins. I think we all get enough of that during real world election campaigns.

No I'm just saying that a lot of people have little time to read through 20 pages of manifestos and so avoid learning anything about the parties before voting. A simple page which briefly lays out the key party policies would be a convenient way for voters with little time to pick out who they want to choose. I did not adocate we 'dumb down' (how cliched is that phrase) the electoral system and do you want to not twist my words in the future mate?

Woo, about the thread being kept open! :)


Anyway, I can propose a rounding system. Simply round a party's number of seats up if the decimal is above half, and down if below. If the number does not work out at 25, then give the seats to the party who were nearest to getting an extra seat.

Erm... That's exactly what the system is at present.

Such biting venom, displayed by people in a thread about an fake election with fake parties.

Such biting venom, displayed by people in a thread about an fake election with fake parties.

I've been enjoying it. :) A win is a win to most people, I think.

NS Classic Liberals and the Tink supporters are leading, very close.

Clue to my vote - :fluffle:

NS Classic Liberals and the Tink supporters are leading, very close.

Clue to my vote - :fluffle:

Well, thank you if you voted for the COTP - but it's in fourth place, not leading. The DSP are leading with the Classic Liberals.

NS Classic Liberals and the Tink supporters are leading, very close.

Clue to my vote - :fluffle:
You mean the NS Classic Liberals and The Democratic Socialists?

*nods*

Indeed. The main reason why I kept the number of seats as low as 25 was because some parties have relatively few members, and I didn't want us to end up with a situation where parties would have more seats than members, and we'd end up with a Parliament full of empty seats.

Still, 50 could be a possibility. Something to consider, indeed.

The last time I looked at the DSP situation, they had two active members. As it stands they have 5 seats, doubling this would mean that they have to find 8 other people to occupy these seats. I am not sure that this is a good idea.

The last time I looked at the DSP situation, they had two active members. As it stands they have 5 seats, doubling this would mean that they have to find 8 other people to occupy these seats. I am not sure that this is a good idea.

Indeed you are right, although we are 3 right now (Leonstein joined us) and I'm still hopeing that The Odd One will show up, but we still need at least 2 more. Also I'm very busy lately and can't spend all my time on the net so I don't know how much devotion can I put in the party or the parlaiment.

You mean the NS Classic Liberals and The Democratic Socialists?

Someone who overuses :fluffle: .

The last time I looked at the DSP situation, they had two active members. As it stands they have 5 seats, doubling this would mean that they have to find 8 other people to occupy these seats. I am not sure that this is a good idea.

Which is why I limited the number of overall seats in the first place. ;)

There was no way for me to know which parties were going to be successful in the election, but the DSP is hardly alone in having few members.

Don't get me wrong. It was not a dig at the DSP. Just an observation that the problem existed. Whilst we can fill six or seven seats comfortably, ten or more would mean apointing less active members. :)

What is the intended procedure after the election is over? What is it seen that the parliament will do. Will it have a weekly debate on some point, or will there just be kudos points for the 'winners' and that is it, or do people have other suggestions?

Don't get me wrong. It was not a dig at the DSP. Just an observation that the problem existed. Whilst we can fill six or seven seats comfortably, ten or more would mean apointing less active members. :)

What is the intended procedure after the election is over? What is it seen that the parliament will do. Will it have a weekly debate on some point, or will there just be kudos points for the 'winners' and that is it, or do people have other suggestions?

Well, it would be nice if Parliament could be active. :)

I suggest that MPs could put forth points for Parliament to discuss, and pass, if not laws, then at least statements of principle. That would enable debates within Parliament, the parties having to try and win one another's support, etc...

In any case, I'm open to ideas as to what Parliament should do.

I too would like the Parliament to be active.

One suggestion is that we start with an order of motions debate. This would be to determine which matters should be discussed. Then move on to debating the specific matters, giving about a week for each debate, with a poll being added at the end of the debate. This poll would have to be a simple yea - nay poll with regard to a specific motion, and have to be public, with only the votes of accredited members of the Parliament being counted. (other voters having their votes discarded.) The problem is how to keep the debate between the members of parliament. We could generate a parralel Heckling/Lobbying thread, where non MPs could voice their opinions.

New items could be introduced into the order of business by a simple majority of the MPs approving this. (This allows for response to RL issues arising)

Well that is one suggestion.

Oh, and
Vote Classic Liberal, we will listen to you.

A further warning for Social Democrats:

Your party is selling you out to the communists:

See this link http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9009346&postcount=384

I too would like the Parliament to be active.

One suggestion is that we start with an order of motions debate. This would be to determine which matters should be discussed. Then move on to debating the specific matters, giving about a week for each debate, with a poll being added at the end of the debate. This poll would have to be a simple yea - nay poll with regard to a specific motion, and have to be public, with only the votes of accredited members of the Parliament being counted. (other voters having their votes discarded.) The problem is how to keep the debate between the members of parliament. We could generate a parralel Heckling/Lobbying thread, where non MPs could voice their opinions.

New items could be introduced into the order of business by a simple majority of the MPs approving this. (This allows for response to RL issues arising)

Well that is one suggestion.


Hmm. Sounds good to me.


Oh, and
Vote Classic Liberal, we will listen to you.

Well, except for this bit. ;)

I voted the cult of Tink. Do I get my soxors roxored now?

VOTE FOR THE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - WE CARE ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFE

Being "idologically correct" is an oxymoron! Responding to the real world out of some preconcieved notion as to what you "should" and "should not" do severly limits your options.

Vote Party of Whatever Works and engage the real world with real solutions, not knee-jerk responses!

VOTE UDCP!

Vote against becoming a piece of machinery ground for other people's profit! Vote against losing the fruit of your labour so that the masters of the economy can amass ever more profit from the sweat of your work!

Vote for FREEDOM! Vote for EQUALITY! Vote for SOCIAL JUSTICE and RESPONSABILITY! Vote for the respect of HUMAN RIGHTS and DIGNITY!

I was told that I shouldn't waste space by positng ads for the RTP here. Does that apply to all parties? Have we been allowed more than 1300 messages? Or are classic liberals just breaking the rules?

Where's the 'none of the above' option?

Where's the 'none of the above' option?
It's called 'not voting'

I was told that I shouldn't waste space by positng ads for the RTP here. Does that apply to all parties? Have we been allowed more than 1300 messages? Or are classic liberals just breaking the rules?

Apparently the mods are allowing it to go over 1300.

Good good

http://img260.echo.cx/img260/4135/kittenkill0lg.jpg

It's called 'not voting'

Indeed. As things stand, in most elections abstaining, and blank votes, are not counted within the overall percentage. I suggested a Blank Party that would have amended to that problem, but nobody followed me on it.

It's called 'not voting'
Nope, that's a different thing entirely. Abstention is not necessarily an expression of distaste for the options available, whereas voting 'none of the above' is explicity stating your rejection of all of those standing.

Not that it matters, I'm just bored and feel like highlighting the lack of any decent options...

Indeed. As things stand, in most elections abstaining, and blank votes, are not counted within the overall percentage. I suggested a Blank Party that would have amended to that problem, but nobody followed me on it.
A shame.

Nope, that's a different thing entirely. Abstention is not necessarily an expression of distaste for the options available, whereas voting 'none of the above' is explicity stating your rejection of all of those standing.

Not that it matters, I'm just bored and feel like highlighting the lack of any decent options...
Revolutionary trotskyism is the best damn idea ever

Nope, that's a different thing entirely. Abstention is not necessarily an expression of distaste for the options available, whereas voting 'none of the above' is explicity stating your rejection of all of those standing.

Not that it matters, I'm just bored and feel like highlighting the lack of any decent options...
What would you consider to be a "decent" option? I truly would like to know. :)

Revolutionary trotskyism is the best damn idea ever
Fucking Trots! Splitters, sectarians, left deviationists and most probably running dogs, the lot of youse.

A shame.

If I get some backing, I could always create a Blank Party for the next election - which, theoretically, won't be for quite a while.

What would you consider to be a "decent" option? I truly would like to know. :)
Well, 'decent' was perhaps too pejorative a term. My ideological position is that of the libertarian left, but I'd like to have seen some social democrats, greens and centrists.

I vote on the Democratic Socialist Party

Revolutionary trotskyism is the best damn idea ever
I'd join, but I'd rather not receive an ice-pick nose job.

Fucking Trots! Splitters, sectarians, left deviationists and most probably running dogs, the lot of youse.
Piss of ya stalinist swine

Well, 'decent' was perhaps too pejorative a term. My ideological position is that of the libertarian left, but I'd like to have seen some social democrats, greens and centrists.
"Libertarian left" seems to me to be a tad oxymoronic, but whatever trips your trigger.

In the sense that many of our positions seem to be "centrist," the Party of Whatever Works tends to be "centrist." However, our aversion to ideological "knee-jerk" approaches to political matters, particularly those of major social impact, leads us to work toward real solutions to real world problems. Thus the name, Party of Whatever Works.

I'd join, but I'd rather not receive an ice-pick nose job.
Wimp.

I voted the cult of Tink. Do I get my soxors roxored now?
*roxorz your soxorz*

*roxorz your soxorz*
*enjoys the soxor roxoring*

Wimp.
And I didn't like Mexico either.

And I didn't like Mexico either.
Xenophobe nationalist

Wow, I must say I'm doing pretty well for someone with no propaganda to speak of.

Well, 'decent' was perhaps too pejorative a term. My ideological position is that of the libertarian left, but I'd like to have seen some social democrats, greens and centrists.

The Cult of TInk Party is social-democratic, and the closest to the centre of the four left-wing parties.

Vote Melkor! For the God of Elvenkind! For the black, polished jackboots of justice! For lesbian SS officers with riding crops and pointy ears! For the future! For us!

UP YOURS: FOR VICTORY!

I find it interesting how the Up Yours Party just got 5 votes in a row....

Wow, I must say I'm doing pretty well for someone with no propaganda to speak of.
Its the catchy name combined with the great arguments put forward by yourself and of course, a great manifesto :p

Your party would of been my second choice

I find it interesting how the Up Yours Party just got 5 votes in a row....
Hooray for IRC.

I find it interesting how the Up Yours Party just got 5 votes in a row....
That's nice. I find it pleasing that it wasn't any of the leftie parties that got five in a row

Hooray for IRC.
:eek: i forgot all about IRC! so much untapped support for the UDCP... ;)

Hooray for IRC.
i'd have done that but everyone hates me on IRC :(

Yeah, the IRC crowd can be pretty abrasive, actually. Especially in #ns. I think I'm one of the only ops there that doesn't love to ban people.

The other day we had to change our banlist to an akick list, because the banlist was full. It was sick.

"Libertarian left" seems to me to be a tad oxymoronic, but whatever trips your trigger.

In the sense that many of our positions seem to be "centrist," the Party of Whatever Works tends to be "centrist." However, our aversion to ideological "knee-jerk" approaches to political matters, particularly those of major social impact, leads us to work toward real solutions to real world problems. Thus the name, Party of Whatever Works.
I'm a libertarian, not a Libertarian. No oxymoron there.

Your party has interesting views and I like your attitude towards politics, but I disagree with too much to offer my support.

The Cult of TInk Party is social-democratic, and the closest to the centre of the four left-wing parties.
Yes, but it's the Cult of fuckin' TInk Party. I'd rather eat my own shit than vote for them.

Piss of ya stalinist swine
Ah, you're just a bourgeois fellow traveller in denial.

Yes, but it's the Cult of fuckin' TInk Party. I'd rather eat my own shit than vote for them.


well now, isn't that just delightful

Please note: most of my remarks in this thread should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.

That said, I don't go for idolatry. ;)

Please note: most of my remarks in this thread should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.

That said, I don't go for idolatry. ;)

Perhaps the party of whatever works would suit you

Perhaps the party of whatever works would suit you
Nope, already looked at them.

NSCL's Have pulled ahead in seats, if only for a moment (v. Close vote really).

With Quorum Interpretation:
NS Classic Liberals 6
Democratic Socialist Party 5
"Up yours!" Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
Cult of TInk Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 0
Party of Order 0
Total 25

Without Quorum interpretation (simply rounded):
NS Classic Liberals 5
Democratic Socialist Party 4
Cult of TInk Party 3
United Democratic Communist Party 3
"Up yours!" Party 3
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans 2
Party of Whatever Works 2
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance 1
Party of Order 1
Revolutionary Trotskyist Party 1
Total 25

Have fun!

you know, these elections are much better when you have more than two parties.

Nope, already looked at them.
you know if you like COTP's policies best you should vote for us, i wanna change the party name anyway after the election(are we allowed to do that?)

Ah, you're just a bourgeois fellow traveller in denial.
And you're just a fash posing as a lefty

you know if you like COTP's policies best you should vote for us, i wanna change the party name anyway after the election(are we allowed to do that?)
I sure hope so. I intend on becoming The Reason Party post-election.

They're all just liberal parties, it really doesn't matter

Yup, parties can change their names after the election. No reason why not.

you know if you like COTP's policies best you should vote for us, i wanna change the party name anyway after the election(are we allowed to do that?)
Thanks for the offer, but I'm not persuaded by your platform.

They're all just liberal parties, it really doesn't matter
How dare you.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not persuaded by your platform.
i'll give you a cookie

They're all just liberal parties, it really doesn't matter

Every party is, to differing levels, socially liberal, but there is a wide variety on economic issues.

Every party is, to differing levels, socially liberal, but there is a wide variety on economic issues.

I don't think the party of order is liberal at all

VOTE FOR THE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS

VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

you know if you like COTP's policies best you should vote for us, i wanna change the party name anyway after the election(are we allowed to do that?)

I think, that only a minor change is needed. Like Cult of TInk Socialist Party, to express your orientation. Take TInk out of it and the party loses it's identity.

I think, that only a minor change is needed. Like Cult of TInk Socialist Party, to express your orientation. Take TInk out of it and the party loses it's identity.
No kidding. God forbid it actually represent some kind of ideology.

I think, that only a minor change is needed. Like Cult of TInk Socialist Party, to express your orientation. Take TInk out of it and the party loses it's identity.
hmmmm......i think we at least need to lose the 'cult' part

time for a poster


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCPbgcompressed.jpg


hmm think i need to make some new ones...

hmmmm......i think we at least need to lose the 'cult' part

The TInk Socialist Party, then? Hmm... Sounds a little strange somehow, but why not?

The TInk Socialist Party, then? Hmm... Sounds a little strange somehow, but why not?
i'm not even sure if i want to keep Tink in it to be honest

The TInk Socialist Party, then? Hmm... Sounds a little strange somehow, but why not?

Very strange, as it does not even have a consistent socialist view. How about Tinks Really I Flufle Love Everyone Party or TRIFLE party for short. It would fit the political awareness and understanding quite well.

Congrats to the Reason Party (aka Up Yours) for a very succesful day, we will have to watch out for you catching us if we are not careful,

time for a poster

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/UDCPbgcompressed.jpg

hmm think i need to make some new ones...

You may not have a clue politically, but you are a whiz with posters. ;)

Very strange, as it does not even have a consistent socialist view. How about Tinks Really I Flufle Love Everyone Party or TRIFLE party for short. It would fit the political awareness and understanding quite well.

Hehe, so true :p

Very strange, as it does not even have a consistent socialist view. How about Tinks Really I Flufle Love Everyone Party or TRIFLE party for short. It would fit the political awareness and understanding quite well.

because then people are so much more likely to take the party seriously :rolleyes:

Does anyone else find it strange that there is a membership overlap between certain parties.

If this is open, then it is not too big a problem, it just shows a lack of political consistency, for example Ariddia in both UCDP and COTP. As their policies are supposedly different it simply means that Ariddia is undecided I suppose.

However when the founder of a party crops up as a member of another, without declaring this publicly, there is reason to suspect duplicity.

Check out the name below Jello Biafra's here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=12) and then go look at the Manifesto of a certain socialist party where they declare themselves not to be communist.

Don't let them decieve you. If you are centerist or slightly left of center, consider wel who you are voting for.

VOTE FOR THE NS CLASSIC LIBERALS

VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOMS

because then people are so much more likely to take the party seriously :rolleyes:

Do you really expect to spam post for the entire year, and then when the elections come around that people will take you seriously? Life does not work that way, as I hope you will learn one day.

Wow, the UDCP has a gigantic roster. Yet they are fourth in votes. They are going to have some fights for representative chairs.

I voted in favor of the Revolutionary Trotskyist Party.

Do you really expect to spam post for the entire year, and then when the elections come around that people will take you seriously? Life does not work that way, as I hope you will learn one day.
not all of my posts are spam! and it would be nice if people could appreciate that for once i'm making an effort with something that isn't 'spam'

Do you really expect to spam post for the entire year, and then when the elections come around that people will take you seriously? Life does not work that way, as I hope you will learn one day.

Here, here. COTP is not a serious party. There is not a serious left of centre Social Democrat party, a party similar to the Democrats in America. Instead you have communist parties and a socialist party that are allies when in fact a proper left of centre party would not even think of allying with the communists.

not all of my posts are spam! and it would be nice if people could appreciate that for once i'm making an effort with something that isn't 'spam'

So you are admitting that you spam a lot?

Wow, this election is going interestingly. One of the two largest parties is a sham, and the right-wingers seem to be winning by a decently large margin.
Not at all what I would have expected, what with the General forums having more lefties than righties.

Good job so far, Classic Liberals.

http://img141.echo.cx/img141/4038/capitalcrime4ge.jpg

So you are admitting that you spam a lot?
it depends what you class as spam, not proper spam, where i post just for the sake of boosting my poostcount, but if you mean posting in topics that aren't actually to do with politics which could be seen as spam on a politics forum then yeah, i admit it, i do that, but i'm not exactly the only one and if we got rid of everyone that did that then there wouldn't be many people left, Jolt would work better but it'd be kinda boring

Wow, this election is going interestingly. One of the two largest parties is a sham, and the right-wingers seem to be winning by a decently large margin.
Not at all what I would have expected, what with the General forums having more lefties than righties.

Good job so far, Classic Liberals.

Thank you, N-A.

May I ask which party you support? I understand if you don't want to divulge this information, but you should know that I would not hold your decision against you.

You are a well respected poster and I would like to know which party appeals to you.

it depends what you class as spam, not proper spam, where i post just for the sake of boosting my poostcount, but if you mean posting in topics that aren't actually to do with politics which could be seen as spam on a politics forum then yeah, i admit it, i do that, but i'm not exactly the only one and if we got rid of everyone that did that then there wouldn't be many people left, Jolt would work better but it'd be kinda boring

The point is that you have created, deliberately an image. That of the Fluffle queen. Now that is fine if that is what you want, but you can not just drop the image if it is inconvenient. I am not caling you a liar, but it is the same case as that of the boy who cried wolf. Do you see?

Also, your perpetual argument that you are not the only one, is irrelevant. You are the only one with this image that is trying to have their party taken seriously. Do you see TIN here complaining that no one is taking him seriously? No. What about Moleland? No he isn't complaining either.

You have made your bed, with 10,000+ mostly contentless posts, and now you want people to ignore that history. Sorry it is not going to be ignored.

Have fun if you want, but understand the consequences of this down the road. Be responsible for yourself. :)

And if you want to be responsible for yourself:

Vote Classic Liberal

The point is that you have created, deliberately an image. That of the Fluffle queen. Now that is fine if that is what you want, but you can not just drop the image if it is inconvenient. I am not caling you a liar, but it is the same case as that of the boy who cried wolf. Do you see?

Also, your perpetual argument that you are not the only one, is irrelevant. You are the only one with this image that is trying to have their party taken seriously. Do you see TIN here complaining that no one is taking him seriously? No. What about Moleland? No he isn't complaining either.

You have made your bed, with 10,000+ mostly contentless posts, and now you want people to ignore that history. Sorry it is not going to be ignored.

Have fun if you want, but understand the consequences of this down the road. Be responsible for yourself. :)

And if you want to be responsible for yourself:

Vote Classic Liberal

so people aren't allowed to have fun sometimes and be serious at others? that's stupid

Vote Classic Liberal For an Economically Segregated(and therefore better) Tomorrow
http://img228.echo.cx/img228/9011/friedfuck9xp.jpg

Fascism
1. A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
1. B. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

This in no way describes the MRR. We do not believe in centralization of authority- we believe that many decisions should be in the hands of local legislatures etc. rather than central government so that locals can choose how they wish to govern themselves rather than being controlled by a distant authority.

7. All other rights (life, liberty and property) are not to be the business of the central federal government but rather by the individual states.

We also believe that officials should be elected, with no dictators or party rule. We want people to decide for themselves how to live and not by the national government. We also very strongly support rights beyond life, liberty, and property such as freedom of speech, assembly, right to due process, fair fines, etc. etc. We also do not advocate racism, militarism, or belligerence- we simply want to help better people.

3. All other rights are to be bestowed upon those who have not successfully completed a term of Service as well as those who have.

There is only one difference between those who have completed service and those who haven't- we have entrusted the tools to help make a better society to those who have invested a portion of their lives to help others. All nations have restrictions on voting. Age is definitely not the best way to determine suffrage- why should a 40 year old idiot be allowed to vote and not a 15 year old genius? Nor is nationality a good qualifier, because an immigrant can quickly adopt his new country and try to help it while a native could care less. We feel that the best qualifier is a personal investment to help others and society as well, which in turn makes them better people- no screening of political ideology, we put people where they can best help others regardless of race, sex, creed, and any of the other factors. All we care about is a person's heart and will and how they can demonstrate that they will put others above themselves. This is not fascism, but rather humanitarianism and altruism being channeled for the good of all.

Sorry to post off-topic, but does someone who is doing the propaganda posters in this also play Particracy, in Lodamun? The terrorists trying to oust my president are putting up some nicely done posters themselves, and it amuses me to think that I'm playing against someone from this thread.

so people aren't allowed to have fun sometimes and be serious at others? that's stupid

You don't get it do you? It is not a matter of being allowed. It is a matter of the image you create. That image is much longer lasting than you think.

What is your image of me? I have been here long enough and posted often enough for you to have one.

Let me guess who you would rather party with TIN, LP, Myself or Melchor. Obviously TIN and LP. Why? Because of their image here. I will have an image of being a bit of a stuffed shirt, reasonably fair, and a pig to argue with. This does not mean that I can't crack a joke now and then, but it also means that people take me seriously. Your image, on the other hand is of someone that is almost never serious, that lives for the moment, that could not care less about the future and that uses emotion more than reason. Not the image that is going to make a party based on you be seen as a serious party.

You confirm this by complaining about the effect of your carefully cultivated image. You did it, now live with the consequences of it.

Ooo whats my image?

Vote Classic Liberal For an Economically Self Determined Tomorrow
http://img228.echo.cx/img228/9011/friedfuck9xp.jpg

Hey, are you suggesting that you would advocate Abstinence only for the poor. We certainly don't. If they want to have sex they can.

Hey, are you suggesting that you would advocate Abstinence only for the poor. We certainly don't. If they want to have sex they can.
No I'm saying that Friedman went around raping poor people he found. Quite a bizarre man.

You don't get it do you? It is not a matter of being allowed. It is a matter of the image you create. That image is much longer lasting than you think.

What is your image of me? I have been here long enough and posted often enough for you to have one.

Let me guess who you would rather party with TIN, LP, Myself or Melchor. Obviously TIN and LP. Why? Because of their image here. I will have an image of being a bit of a stuffed shirt, reasonably fair, and a pig to argue with. This does not mean that I can't crack a joke now and then, but it also means that people take me seriously. Your image, on the other hand is of someone that is almost never serious, that lives for the moment, that could not care less about the future and that uses emotion more than reason. Not the image that is going to make a party based on you be seen as a serious party.

You confirm this by complaining about the effect of your carefully cultivated image. You did it, now live with the consequences of it.
well forget it then, i shouldn't have even bothered trying to do something serious, i'll just go back to spamming

Ooo whats my image?

You asked: Check the Image name.
http://www.getty.edu/artsednet/images/P/trotsky-l.jpeg

You asked:

http://www.getty.edu/artsednet/images/P/trotsky-l.jpeg
You totally fucked up my eyebrows. I have 3

Your image, on the other hand is of someone that is almost never serious, that lives for the moment, that could not care less about the future and that uses emotion more than reason. Not the image that is going to make a party based on you be seen as a serious party.


That's not really fair. TInk was the one who turned the COTP into a serious political party in the first place. She's been in this thread debating its policies and her political beliefs in a perfectly serious manner. There's no reason why she shouldn't, and if people read what she's actually proposing, then there's no reason for them not to take it seriously.

Interesting results so far, the votes are spread fairly evenly. I voted for the United Democratic Communist Party.

Interesting results so far, the votes are spread fairly evenly. I voted for the United Democratic Communist Party.

Thank you for your kind support. :)

That's not really fair. TInk was the one who turned the COTP into a serious political party in the first place. She's been in this thread debating its policies and her political beliefs in a perfectly serious manner. There's no reason why she shouldn't, and if people read what she's actually proposing, then there's no reason for them not to take it seriously.

No one said it was fair. It is however true. Tink's image is not that of a deep political thinker is it?

Let me just say that all party's sucked donkeyballs. The "Party of Whatever Works" sucked the least, so they got my vote.

Now stop voting for the damned commies you damn commies!

Damm, tinks a long way behind, we must stop the Liberals, vote United Democratic Communist Party!

Damm, tinks a long way behind, we must stop the Liberals, vote United Democratic Communist Party!

Excellent advice. :)

VOTE UDCP!

Interesting results so far, the votes are spread fairly evenly. I voted for the United Democratic Communist Party.
Pah, reformism is for the weak

Thank you, N-A.

May I ask which party you support? I understand if you don't want to divulge this information, but you should know that I would not hold your decision against you.

You are a well respected poster and I would like to know which party appeals to you.
I voted for the Whatever Works party.

THE NS CLASSIC LIBERAL PARTY STANDS FOR:

That the fundamental principle of society shall be the preservation of the rights and responsibilities of the individual

Regulation of society shall be maintained through the fair enforcement of contracts and competitive forces of the free market.

The government shall not intervene in any political matter that has effect purely and solely on one individual.

Religion is a personal choice and of no consequence to the government, therefore religious views will not be recognized or restricted by government.

We Advocate

FREE TRADE, FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND PROSPERITY FOR ALL

Help Restore Sanity to the Political Process!

Vote for the Party of Whatever Works!

No monarchist party?

Current Parliament Makeup
as of 543 total votes
(some rounding involved to bring total to 25 seats)

NS Classic Liberals
19.15% - 5 seats

Democratic Socialist Party
18.97% - 5 seats

"Up yours!" Party
11.60% - 3 seats

United Democratic Communist Party
11.23% - 3 seats

Cult of TInk Party
10.68% - 2 seats

NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans
9.76% - 2 seats

Party of Whatever Works
8.47% - 2 seats

Revolutionary Trotskyist Party
4.24% - 1 seat

Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance
3.50% - 1 seat

Party of Order
2.39% - 1 seat

Sorry to post off-topic, but does someone who is doing the propaganda posters in this also play Particracy, in Lodamun? The terrorists trying to oust my president are putting up some nicely done posters themselves, and it amuses me to think that I'm playing against someone from this thread.
I've done most of the professional-looking posters, but I don't play Particracy. (I've never even heard of that game.)

Sorry.

Current Parliament Makeup
as of 543 total votes
(some rounding involved to bring total to 25 seats)

NS Classic Liberals
19.15% - 5 seats

Democratic Socialist Party
18.97% - 5 seats

"Up yours!" Party
11.60% - 3 seats

United Democratic Communist Party
11.23% - 3 seats

Cult of TInk Party
10.68% - 2 seats

NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans
9.76% - 2 seats

Party of Whatever Works
8.47% - 2 seats

Revolutionary Trotskyist Party
4.24% - 1 seat

Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents' Alliance
3.50% - 1 seat

Party of Order
2.39% - 1 seat


My calculations give Tink one more seat (unfortunately) and none for the party of order as tink is closer to three seats than Order is to one seat

No monarchist party?

if you make one i'd join it. closest to a good dictatorship out of what's so far.

Damm, tinks a long way behind, we must stop the Liberals, vote United Democratic Communist Party!
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/udcp1.gif

:D

if you make one i'd join it. closest to a good dictatorship out of what's so far.
You could vote UDCP or RTP as most 'communist experiments' eventually turn into tyrannical dictatorships.

You could alternately vote for the DSP, which basically calls for a Nanny/Big Brother state. Close enough to a dictatorship.

You could vote UDCP or RTP as most 'communist experiments' eventually turn into tyrannical dictatorships.

You could alternately vote for the DSP, which basically calls for a Nanny/Big Brother state. Close enough to a dictatorship.

Keep telling yourself things, and they might eventually come true!

Gotta love vivid imaginations.

You could vote UDCP or RTP as most 'communist experiments' eventually turn into tyrannical dictatorships.

You could alternately vote for the DSP, which basically calls for a Nanny/Big Brother state. Close enough to a dictatorship.
Isn't the Party of Order a dictatorship party?

Keep telling yourself things, and they might eventually come true!

Gotta love vivid imaginations.

Or they do come true and have done many times

China, Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba... :rolleyes:

You could vote UDCP or RTP as most 'communist experiments' eventually turn into tyrannical dictatorships.


Well, vote for us (UDCP) if you like, but we won't be turning into a dictatorship. *shrugs*

http://img69.echo.cx/img69/9509/slavery3xw.jpg

You could vote UDCP or RTP as most 'communist experiments' eventually turn into tyrannical dictatorships.

You could alternately vote for the DSP, which basically calls for a Nanny/Big Brother state. Close enough to a dictatorship.

you don't vote a dictator into power :p

anyways, i'd said good dictator, not greedy dictator or one of them. a good dictator like stalin kim or franco. well, maybe not franco.

Or they do come true and have done many times

China, Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba... :rolleyes:

None of which were or are communist. Some of you do like going round and round in circles, don't you?

Isn't the Party of Order a dictatorship party?
True...but I was referring to serious parties. ;)

Well, vote for us (UDCP) if you like, but we won't be turning into a dictatorship. *shrugs*
WOW! You can see the future? Cool! Psychic Communists!

:p

you don't vote a dictator into power :p

anyways, i'd said good dictator, not greedy dictator or one of them. a good dictator like stalin kim or franco. well, maybe not franco.
Wow. I guess by "good" you mean murdering and starving millions of their own people, I guess you could call Stalin and Kim "good" dictators.

:eek:

None of which were or are communist. Some of you do like going round and round in circles, don't you?

Well they call themselves communists, communists in other countries claimed they were communists (Weimar Germany's communists idolising the Soviet Union)

Just because Communism seems to end up in dictatorship does not mean they were not communist in the beginning. Communism is inherently flawed and in my eyes it is not even a noble idea as all people aren't equal, they are created equal and should be equal before the law but there should only be equality of OPPORTUNITY not equality for equality's sake.

Argh! DSP is only one vote behind us!

None of which were or are communist. Some of you do like going round and round in circles, don't you?

We just follow your lead in this.

You may not consider them to have been communist, and if you want use the true definition of communist, the UDCP is not communist either, it is much closer to the USSR, China, North Korea Cuba than it is to communism.

But that does not stop you calling yourselves communist. So we can call those countries that tried a system like the one you are proposing communist or you can stop claiming to be communist, which is it to be?

Well they call themselves communists, communists in other countries claimed they were communists (Weimar Germany's communists idolising the Soviet Union)

Just because Communism seems to end up in dictatorship does not mean they were not communist in the beginning. Communism is inherently flawed and in my eyes it is not even a noble idea as all people aren't equal, they are created equal and should be equal before the law but there should only be equality of OPPORTUNITY not equality for equality's sake.

So, if a 7-year-old child claims he's 55, he must be 55!

Argh! DSP is only one vote behind us!
You think that's bad? MOBRA is three votes behind us

You may not consider them to have been communist, and if you want use the true definition of communist, the UDCP is not communist either, it is much closer to the USSR, China, North Korea Cuba than it is to communism.

Tell me --- Just how are we like the nations you listed?

None of which were or are communist. Some of you do like going round and round in circles, don't you?
HAHAHA! Give me a break. People can lump anything even remotely 'christian' under the Christian banner even if they don't follow the teachings of Christ to a T. Under that premise, even if China, the Soviet Union and North Korea don't follow Marx and Engels EXACTLY, they are still Communist.

Deal with it.

HAHAHA! Give me a break. People can lump anything even remotely 'christian' under the Christian banner even if they don't follow the teachings of Christ to a T. Under that premise, even if China, the Soviet Union and North Korea don't follow Marx and Engels EXACTLY, they are still Communist.

Deal with it.

They're not Communist, because they have one person (or a very small group of people) ruling them with an iron fist.

I have long hair, but does that make me a female? I'll let you figure out what I mean.

You may not consider them to have been communist, and if you want use the true definition of communist, the UDCP is not communist either, it is much closer to the USSR, China, North Korea Cuba than it is to communism.

But that does not stop you calling yourselves communist. So we can call those countries that tried a system like the one you are proposing communist or you can stop claiming to be communist, which is it to be?

We are nothing like those countries, if you look at our manifesto. Also, while the system of society we advocate may not be pure communism, it is much closer to it than has ever been tried, and is a fundamental step towards it.

Further, your apparent contradiction doesn't hold. Those societies were/are not communist, but we can call ourselves communists because were are striving toward a communist society.

Well they call themselves communists, communists in other countries claimed they were communists (Weimar Germany's communists idolising the Soviet Union)

Just because Communism seems to end up in dictatorship does not mean they were not communist in the beginning. Communism is inherently flawed and in my eyes it is not even a noble idea as all people aren't equal, they are created equal and should be equal before the law but there should only be equality of OPPORTUNITY not equality for equality's sake.

that's one case where fascism is better than communism.

I have long hair, but does that make me a female?
*no comment*

:eek:

:p

/me runs

HAHAHA! Give me a break. People can lump anything even remotely 'christian' under the Christian banner even if they don't follow the teachings of Christ to a T. Under that premise, even if China, the Soviet Union and North Korea don't follow Marx and Engels EXACTLY, they are still Communist.

Deal with it.

No, they are not. You can try to take a word and twist its meaning to make things fit into it which simply cannot, but that those not make your assertions fact, it simply makes them erroneous statements. If you honestly believe those countries underwent a withering away of the state and attained communism, then I suggest you've been reading some rather ill-informed history books. ;)

We are nothing like those countries, if you look at our manifesto. Also, while the system of society we advocate may not be pure communism, it is much closer to it than has ever been tried, and is a fundamental step towards it.
That's one of the main problems I have with Communism. In order for it to work correctly, everyone has to be brainwashed into thinking the same in regards to the "government" and their neighbor. No room for individuality, because individuality isn't good for the Collective.

Just because Communism seems to end up in dictatorship does not mean they were not communist in the beginning.

They were not. They were particular forms of state socialism. The government there never withered away into pure communist democracy to then reappear as state socialist dictatorship.

That's one of the main problems I have with Communism. In order for it to work correctly, everyone has to be brainwashed into thinking the same in regards to the "government" and their neighbor. No room for individuality, because individuality isn't good for the Collective.

Plenty of room for individuality. Everyone will be free to pursue whatever activities and dreams they may have, for their own benefit and that of society. A society cannot function if individuals are not free to do what they find interesting.

That's one of the main problems I have with Communism. In order for it to work correctly, everyone has to be brainwashed into thinking the same in regards to the "government" and their neighbor. No room for individuality, because individuality isn't good for the Collective.

Exactly, everyone is the same, noone is better than anyone (Except the leaders of course :p ), you are all the same and should be treated the same despite the fact that people in a communist state will not work hard as they have no incentive to work hard as they will always be paid the same.

That's one of the main problems I have with Communism. In order for it to work correctly, everyone has to be brainwashed into thinking the same in regards to the "government" and their neighbor. No room for individuality, because individuality isn't good for the Collective.

Really? Tell me why you can't be free in a Communism. There's nothing stopping you from doing what you want.

Plenty of room for individuality. Everyone will be free to pursue whatever activities and dreams they may have, for their own benefit and that of society. A society cannot function if individuals are not free to do what they find interesting.
What if they want to make lots of money?

What if they want to have a swimming pool? Own a plane? Own expensive and fast cars?

Under communism they cannot achieve this. The only way to be free and do what you want is to be economically and socially free.
CLASSIC LIBERALS ALL THE WAY!

What if they want to make lots of money?

What if they want to have a swimming pool? Own a plane? Own expensive and fast cars?

Under communism they cannot achieve this. The only way to be free and do what you want is to be economically and socially free.
CLASSIC LIBERALS ALL THE WAY!

Hahahahaha. You call owning useless shit "freedom"?

Anyway, who's saying you can't own a swimming pool, a car, or a plane? Who's saying you can't make them yourself, for that matter?

We are nothing like those countries, if you look at our manifesto. Also, while the system of society we advocate may not be pure communism, it is much closer to it than has ever been tried, and is a fundamental step towards it.

Further, your apparent contradiction doesn't hold. Those societies were/are not communist, but we can call ourselves communists because were are striving toward a communist society.

I have looked at your manifesto, in case you don't remember. Do you really want me to go through all the problems with the money free society again?

In many respects you are exactly like those countries that are commonly denominated communist.
You are centralising, even if youy say it is to be regional, it still has central control, all aspects of everyday life. From which milk you have on the breakfast table to what the media will publish. There is to be no private enterprise, and given that all the media will be under government control, no freedom of the press. You may claim that there will be, but the soviets also claimed that Pravda was the only free press in the world in case you don't remember.

People will be "assigned", if they don't volunteer, to carry out menial tasks. The entire education system will be regulated and controlled, down to the content of the curriculum.

This all sounds horribly familiar to those who lived in Eastern Europe under the Warsaw pact. You may claim that you are different, and your irdealistic vision may be different, but in the practical day to day life of the people under your proposed system, it is identical to the Stalinist dictatorships you so claim to detest.

The second point is that no party that intends to govern a state can be communist. The argument that you make to distance yourselves from the USSR, China, CUba, North Vietnam is to say that they are no communist. Your argument, not mine. So when I point out that this is irrelevant as you are not communist either, despite your name, you claim that "in your case this does not matter". Sorry if it matters in one case it matters in all.

Hahahahaha. You call owning useless shit "freedom"?

Anyway, who's saying you can't own a swimming pool, a car, or a plane? Who's saying you can't make them yourself, for that matter?

Owning a swimming pool is not useless shit. Shows how silly i think your views are.

Who's to stop them? Communism stops them as the economy is not free they are paid the same so either everyone can afford one or noone can afford one.

Make them yourself? Don't make me laugh, the vast majority of people cannot make them. In Communism they would not be able to get the required goods due to economic restrictions and a lack of money. Don't pretend people have freedom under communism, no such freedom exists.

Owning a swimming pool is not useless shit. Shows how stupid your views are.

Whos to stop them? Communism stops them as the economy is not free they are paid the same so either everyone can afford one or noone can afford one.

Make them yourself? Dont make me laugh, the vast majority of people cannot make them. In Communism they would not be able to get the required goods due to economic restrictions and a lack of money. Don't pretend people have freedom under communism, no such freedom exists.

You think money is everything, don't you?

Well they call themselves communists, communists in other countries claimed they were communists (Weimar Germany's communists idolising the Soviet Union)

Just because Communism seems to end up in dictatorship does not mean they were not communist in the beginning. Communism is inherently flawed and in my eyes it is not even a noble idea as all people aren't equal, they are created equal and should be equal before the law but there should only be equality of OPPORTUNITY not equality for equality's sake.
under capitalism people are not created equal, by no means.
and hence they do not have equality of opportunity

Owning a swimming pool is not useless shit. Shows how stupid your views are.

Sigged.

:D

You think money is everything, don't you?

I do not think money is everything, i myself am poor. I do not subscribe to the belief that money is everything, for me, love and family is everything. Money does not bring happiness but it can help in some regards.

Do i aspire to own a swimming pool? Not really but it would be nice.

Do i want a nice home and a good job? Do i want to live a comfortable life? Do i want to give money to charities i believe in. Yes i do.

Money is not everything.

Really? Tell me why you can't be free in a Communism. There's nothing stopping you from doing what you want.

Well the policy of the UDCP for a start

* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of weeks or so.

Some freedom that huh. Sorry no, you can not complete that time critical task that would result in cheaper energy for everyone - you have to clean the toilets in the public park for the next two weeks.

Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.

Sorry you can not have that mango, they don't grow here you'l have to have some potatos instead. No you cant trade for it, you have not done anything there, yoiu have nothing they want and you have no money to pay for it. What do you mean you would like to visit London. That would mean having money to spend, and you lknow we dont have that.

Freedom huh. freedom to accept what you are given, with no option to have anything else nor even to leave.

Make them yourself? Dont make me laugh, the vast majority of people cannot make them. In Communism they would not be able to get the required goods due to economic restrictions and a lack of money. Don't pretend people have freedom under communism, no such freedom exists.
a community can get together and make something like a swimming pool, if that's the example. this is one of the reasons its called 'communism' after all

I've done most of the professional-looking posters, but I don't play Particracy. (I've never even heard of that game.)

Sorry.

Eh, the posters I'm referring to are from terrorists trying to destroy my libertarian party, so I don't think you'd be behind them anyway. :D But you are certainly correct about professional-looking posters. Very nice job.

under capitalism people are not created equal, by no means.
and hence they do not have equality of opportunity

You can create equality of opportunity through the education system, a system based on merit. How else did i get into the LSE?

a community can get together and make something like a swimming pool, if that's the example. this is one of the reasons its called 'communism' after all

Okay, so there's a community swimming pool now. Now where's the one that I own, since that's what the question was about?

Well the policy of the UDCP for a start



Some freedom that huh. Sorry no, you can not complete that time critical task that would result in cheaper energy for everyone - you have to clean the toilets in the public park for the next two weeks.



Sorry you can not have that mango, they don't grow here you'l have to have some potatos instead. No you cant trade for it, you have not done anything there, yoiu have nothing they want and you have no money to pay for it. What do you mean you would like to visit London. That would mean having money to spend, and you lknow we dont have that.

Freedom huh. freedom to accept what you are given, with no option to have anything else nor even to leave.

Well, I for one can say that I don't agree with those (I only read the early manifesto, so this is the first time I've seen these). Maybe some ammendments will be in order, courtesy of yours truly.

*points to Political Compass in sig*

Can I reiterate that:

the founder of the DSP is a secret member of the UDCP.


A vote for the democratic socialists is a vote for the pseudo communists.

Okay, so there's a community swimming pool now. Now where's the one that I own, since that's what the question was about?

Exactly and what about this plane you say i can build?

Where will i get the parts with no money?

Answer that.

Why would the economy supply me with those parts if there isn't any need for them seeing as your economy is not based on supply and demand.

Some freedom that huh. Sorry no, you can not complete that time critical task that would result in cheaper energy for everyone - you have to clean the toilets in the public park for the next two weeks.

the rota works for one or two days out of every fortnight (or week, depending on the decisions of local government of course), not for x number of weeks on end.

and as stated in the manifesto some would be exempt from the rota if needed, such as medical staff. plus you are assuming the whole system is completely inflexible.

Okay, so there's a community swimming pool now. Now where's the one that I own, since that's what the question was about?

I don't see why one wouldn't be able to get some friends together and build a swimming pool in his or her back yard/wherever they want to build it.

Well, I for one can say that I don't agree with those (I only read the early manifesto, so this is the first time I've seen these). Maybe some ammendments will be in order, courtesy of yours truly.

*points to Political Compass in sig*

Try knowing what you are arguing for before you jump in the deep end of the communal swimming pool huh.

* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of weeks or so.

okay so according to that, Doctors will be told to clean toilets instead of being doctors. Surgeons will have to clean the streets for two weeks instead of saving lives. Firemen and women will be collecting rubbish from houses. :rolleyes:

from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

A person is able to work all day, every day.
A person doesn'tneed food and sleep every day.

This is slavery. And I certainly wouldn't vote for it.

Exactly and what about this plane you say i can build?

Where will i get the parts with no money?

Answer that.

Why would the economy supply me with those parts if there isn't any need for them seeing as your economy is not based on supply and demand.
why the fuck do you want a plane for yourself? i assume you mean aeroplane?

You can create equality of opportunity through the education system, a system based on merit. How else did i get into the LSE?
tell that to the kids who happen to be born in the poorest parts of wales, or the docklands in London, who go to shit schools.
tell that to the children born in Rowanda who might be lucky enough to walk 15 kilometers to school every day. tell that to the millions who can't afford to do even that.

tell that to the millions who die of poverty each year.

yeah, capitalism really provides equality of opportunity alright :rolleyes:

I don't see why one wouldn't be able to get some friends together and build a swimming pool in his or her back yard/wherever they want to build it.

Like they would get the time to do that

Why would friends help out if there its not for them

Where oh where would they get the parts and materials needed to build it with no money? Tell me that.

Try knowing what you are arguing for before you jump in the deep end of the communal swimming pool huh.

That's a bit of a problem, here. Should I ammend, or leave the part to create my own?

I'll have to think about it.

the rota works for one or two days out of every fortnight (or week, depending on the decisions of local government of course), not for x number of weeks on end.

and as stated in the manifesto some would be exempt from the rota if needed, such as medical staff. plus you are assuming the whole system is completely inflexible.

I quoted your manifesto. It says two weeks at a time. If you want to go back on what you are proposing as soon as it is challenged then fine, but admit that you are changing it.

If you give out exceptions willy nilly, then the essentials don't get done. More than fifty percent of the workforce works in jobs that they would not choose to do if they did not need to do. You are saying that one or two days a fortnight of less than all the population will cover this labour demand. Wrong. The numbers don't balance.

In our system you have the choice of which menial task you do if you cant get something better. In your system you are obligated regardless of preference and you don't even get paid for doing it.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/PureMetal/udcp2.jpg



Why would friends help out if there its not for them

i know its ad hominem and all, but you're a selfish little bastard aren't you?

why the fuck do you want a plane for yourself? i assume you mean aeroplane?

I was stating an example. How about a kick ass computer?

Where would i get that? Would i get that? most likely not.

Would there be innovation in a communist system. NO. Why? No point, an individual is not going to innovate if they are not going to benefit from their innovation.

Altruism is not really atruism when it's compulsory.
Communism is slavery.

http://img251.echo.cx/img251/882/bashthefash1df.jpg

I quoted your manifesto. It says two weeks at a time. If you want to go back on what you are proposing as soon as it is challenged then fine, but admit that you are changing it.

If you give out exceptions willy nilly, then the essentials don't get done. More than fifty percent of the workforce works in jobs that they would not choose to do if they did not need to do. You are saying that one or two days a fortnight of less than all the population will cover this labour demand. Wrong. The numbers don't balance.

In our system you have the choice of which menial task you do if you cant get something better. In your system you are obligated regardless of preference and you don't even get paid for doing it.
it does? well thats not what we agreed on :mad:
damn.

and the exceptions won't be handed out 'willy nilly', but through discussion on local government level - "we have a shortage of doctors" "ok, doctors are off the rota until we work out a solution", or something like that, though i suspect more complicated backed up with employment statistics.
participating in the rota would be encouraged - its your way of truly contributing yourself back to society. and before you say 'why would they want to do that?' remember that human nature is malleable and all that jazz

How often will elections occur?

Like they would get the time to do that

Why would friends help out if there its not for them

Where oh where would they get the parts and materials needed to build it with no money? Tell me that.

Ever heard of weekends? Holidays?

If your friends wouldn't help you with such a task, then you've got some dickheads for "friends".

A pool needs concrete and cement, plus pipes (pipes, of course, would be provided as infrastructure). Where do you get the concrete? Order some in exchange for something the concrete factory might need. Same goes for the cement. A deal would be worked out. If you don't have something they need? Well, it's just like not having enough money to build the pool, so there. Tough shit.

Altruism is not really atruism when it's compulsory.
Communism is slavery.
To live is to work for a master.
Capitalism is slavery.