Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Eluvatar on April 23, 2012, 11:48:00 PM
-
So it seems that the Progressive Party, large as it may be, is not as united as it might like others to think!
Recently Senator Cozulul broke ranks with the party once again and voted with Senator Letonna to purge suspicious-looking foreigners from Taijitu Founder!
The party of course voted that addressing the root causes and negotiating was the only sensible way to approach terrorism.
Where will things go from here!? :fight:
-
I, as a member of the Progressive Party, am quite concerned about this development. Perhaps the party should debate the matter in greater detail so that we may determine if there is an actual ideological conflict.
It may be time to consider future elections as well (this thread (http://forum.taijitu.org/general-discussion/exploratory-committee/) may be relevant).
-
Hi
Maybe it doesn't need to be that large, and have more parties is more interesting debate-wise and elections-wise, maybe even "parliament"-wise. If you want to keep the large party it might need democratization, in a way that you need more debate and accept different views within the party, vote on matters to address etc.
TBH I haven't followed any of Taijitu's political life and I might need some feedback from you guys. No real idea on what you're talking about, is this RP?
-
Hi
Maybe it doesn't need to be that large, and have more parties is more interesting debate-wise and elections-wise, maybe even "parliament"-wise. If you want to keep the large party it might need democratization, in a way that you need more debate and accept different views within the party, vote on matters to address etc.
TBH I haven't followed any of Taijitu's political life and I might need some feedback from you guys. No real idea on what you're talking about, is this RP?
ProP does accept different views, it just wants its senators to represent the voters :D
We're talking about this (http://forum.taijitu.org/progressive-party/terrorists-strike-city-center/) and this (http://forum.taijitu.org/legislative-branch/discussion-on-taijitu-founder-issues/msg139044/#msg139044).
-
I don't really believe in Voting Discipline (when all party members vote the same way), but there must be ways to change this person's affiliation. Expulsion of the ProP delegate list forcing him to be independent or affiliate with another party until new elections, this would be a radical option. To ensure voting discipline you'll need to debate the issues inside ProP and have the majority rule, if he keeps going against the majority rule disciplinary actions are possible, such as expulsion.
-
Well he hasn't actually violated the charter in that last vote because the Party poll didn't have a quorum -- it only had 3 of 9 members vote >_<
-
Party Unity is very important. As I have said on IRC, a disunified party risks looking incapable of governing by parties. Party members contribute to the debate, but they should follow the party's final decision. It ensures party stability, among other things
-
Party Unity is very important. As I have said on IRC, a disunified party risks looking incapable of governing by parties. Party members contribute to the debate, but they should follow the party's final decision. It ensures party stability, among other things
ProP being plural and having different opinions shouldn't matter for those inside what the ones outside view their options. To not look incapable of keeping the party united, you can promote to the public that the dissident opinions are the ProP's sign of being a democratic Party and that allows debate inside the party and it's normal to have different opinions. In real life this actually helps with recruiting new and young militants. Transform what you, Sir, think is bad into good publicity, a Party cannot ever have bad publicity, any publicity is welcome, at least it means it's alive (apart from the fact of no quorum).
-
I would disagree with you. A party can argue that it this disunity represents a democratic party, it rarely works in reality. The party will still be seen to be disunified. Citizens will begin to question what does member X really stand for, when he/she went totally against party policy? A party that is unified with clear vision, plans and goals, that are backed by the party in its entirety are more likely to be successful at an election
-
If
unified with clear vision, plans and goals
, then all people inside are the same, feels like there's a coercive hegemony, not open minded and I'd say, not democratic. If you're restricting thought (even if it's stupid), you're closing the door for new members.
-
Interesting thought. :fight: