Join the new world

You can read Part 1 here.

FP: In a system where every citizen above a certain level is encouraged daily to join a party, do you think they should vote along party lines? Do they?

AF: In all honesty, I think it’s more about the citizen’s personal political ideology rather the party’s. Most new citizens, when they get to chose a political formation, will go for one who is sharing their beliefs. It’s not a bad thing within itself. Eventually, the eCanadian citizen must refine his knowledge of his country’s political life so that he may take better decisions or even actively participate. But this takes some time considering the complexity of eRepublik’s political and economical structure.

I, for one, played for roughly 2 months before I started my more active eRepublikan life.

Sadly, there are some who do always vote for the party line without really trying to understand or contribute to the democratic process. This is the flaw of every democracy on earth and the best way to fight it is with good, unbiased information.

ES: I think people should vote by party lines. I mean that is why they joined the party, to support it. If it comes to election time, and you don't agree with what your parties platform is, then maybe it's time to change to a party that you do agree with.

B: The thing is, the key is not to stop party-line voting, because that's good and a sign of loyalty. Instead, the key is to stop party-line joining. The top five system ensures that, currently, the CSD will have the fastest baby boomer growth rate as it is like a flame to moths. Yes people party-line vote but that's not a problem. If you like the leader and platform, support it.

😨 I think people should vote for which candidate is the best, and be a part of the political party closest to their beliefs. Never should a person get so attached to a party that they blindly vote for their party's candidate. Whether this is occurring, it might have before the boom, but I believe this is finished. Before the boom, most of the voters were semi-active people who didn't even read the platforms. Now, however, the majority of the voters will be boomers and veteran players actually interested in the game so the elections are going to be more meaningful than which party has the most members.

We wanted to emphasize the challenge of a system where all citizens were card carrying members of political parties. Here is the follow up question.

FP: Does voting along party lines not remove the responsibility of eCanadians to elect capable and competent politicians while at the same time giving a disproportionate voice to those that simply want to exploit the system for personal gain?

AF: Of course there is always a risk of electing disingenuous people to our government. The election of inactive congressmen is also a problem.

ES: This is one of the main problems with the newer players, who may not know everything about their party leader. Party leaders can say anything to get elected, but newer players would not know what that leader is really like, because they have not been around long enough to see. This is something where if you don't like what your party is doing, or agree with it's leader, then you need to go to a party that you do trust. New players do get bombarded with 'join this party' all the time... But that does not mean you have to choose a party right then. Take your time and choose a party that you like.

B: Once again. If you find yourself losing confidence in the party, leave it. You are not tied. As long as everyone is responsible in their party status, Canadian politics will be fair and just.

😨 People voting along party lines does make it easier for people to get into power, I won't disagree there. However, I believe in the strength of the community and that the voters will elect the leader most capable of leading the nation. I think people should consider who they vote for, take the time to read the platforms etc.

FP: Does voting along party lines not encourage a blending of all the platforms to the point of almost making them irrelevant (recent elections and debate has shown us that platforms rarely differ in content and cabinet proposal are unanimously uniform)?

AF: It depends, since I think that the similarity of our platforms can be attributed to several factors.

The first of those factors is that while eRepublik is complex, it doesn’t really give that big of a margin for radically different ideological approaches. Secondly, most major parties adhered to what we could call the Alexander Rearden approach of economics. The third factor is the will of any political party to win votes by meeting the demands of the public (a natural goal), and some of those are obvious to every formation out there (Strong support CAF and the price of food are good examples).

Finally, it cannot be denied that Politics have always been about peer pressure, so the party line also has a great deal of influence over the platforms. But the impact it would have could push the different party platforms further apart from each other just as well as it could make them look alike. After all, the party line of the CSD is more to the left side of the political spectrum than the CEP while the CPC is completely opposed in nature to the CLP. But most of eCanada’s political parties seem to have opted for very moderate platforms and while it does causes problems for the election, id say it helps to make the government itself run quite smoothly.

ES: This one of the reasons that I think eCanada has too many parties. We have a dozen or so parties, and most of them are basically the same. There is only a handful that actually have differing ideals and methods. Everytime I see a new party being created.. My head gets closer to exploding! (Instead of parties focusing on what needs to be done, they focus more on attracting new members to compete with the other parties. Not all parties do this, but a large percentage do.)

B: Well, platforms and cabinet are unfortunately lacking in flavour for a party spectrum full of very distinct parties. I blame this on Canada striving for one road to success rather than ways to differentiate the party . For the Communist Party of Canada, which was a distinct platform, party-line joining and subsequent voting eliminates the significance of a sturdy platform from a top-5 party. Actually, cabinet and platform rarely matter, even for top 5 parties, it’s the leader that counts.

😨 Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you about last election's platforms, but they really can be interesting and have been in the past. Voting along party lines is definitely a negative thing especially since the party leader alone gets to decide who the presidential candidate is. But as I said, I think there will be less of that come this election day with all the boomers eager to vote. I think it's all right that platforms are similar in certain ways- for example, the Rearden doctrine has brought us to economic strength and there is no need to significantly divert from this path. However, it is always better when a party has some innovative ideas especially regarding domestic affairs (something I'd like to focus on in the RFP platform). Cabinets being similar for all three parties last term only shows us the strength of the current cabinet and that we are on the right track.

End of Part 2. Part 3 will conclude our discussion as the participants discuss educating the voting masses and ideology.