[DRAFT] Proper Party Purity, Please?

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

A group of long standing loyalists from your party has come to your office with a serious issue: how to address the ideological drift of the party, and whether it should stay at its roots or abandon its principles.


validity: nation has elections and political parties.

[option] ''@@LEADER@@, I speak to you because I know you're are one of us.'' whispers @@RANDOMNAME@@, a party faithful for 30 years now, ''but between you and me, we both know that our beloved party is being hijacked and manipulated by that small rich elite that has no idea how the real world works. We should write up a booklet telling everyone what they should be believe and then have it enforced with an iron grip. Because the best way to ensure purity and to return to our imagined roots is to have a small minority tell everyone else what they should think.''
[effect] party commissars stare over the shoulders of their elected officials to see if they're voting the right way.

[option] ''I feel it in my bones. And I see it in the polls.'' says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your election guru '' Welcome to the new age. In the new age, we have to welcome as many people as possible to win elections. Gone are the days of tribally appealing to a few core voters. Instead, we need to accept that people like this member are going to have different opinions. It's OK though, because who cares about party cohesion when the alternative is to lose the election?''
[effect] party has become a meanness label.

[option] @@RANDOMNAME@@, a professor of politics at the University of @@CAPITAL@@, has another alternative'' Party cohesion isn't a problem in systems where every opinion has a party. If we reformed the electoral system, then we could then properly ensure that everyone gets to have the perfect party tailored for them, so this issue will then become moot. Sure, it''' be expensive and chaotic, but that's not a big sacrifice on the altars of freedom.''
[effect] the governing party has just split about whether ketchup or mayonnaise is better.

[option] ''The biggest crime I'm seeing'' argues pastor @@RANDOMNAME@@ of @@FAITH@@, '' Is the heathen tendencies some of our elected officials have. I think it's clear that we need to establish some ground rules for every member of parliament, regardless of party or creed, in order to keep our nation great. A pledge or oath of office or something that clearly and utterly explains what they think and what they will stand for is the best way of making sure we stay on the right track . Might I suggest that the first point is that they believe in the central tenants of our beloved @@FAITH@@?''
[effect] the by-election race between candidates Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum is very close.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Changed the description to be about concerned loyalists instead of an unorthodox member. Changed option 4 to explicitly include an oath of office that would exclude large numbers of people.

Fire away!

[Golgothastan]

The problem with this issue is that it's still not exactly something to be addressed to a national leader. Rather, it's about internal party matters. The leader of the party isn't necessarily the national leader (for example, in the UK the "Chairman of the Conservative Party" is not the "Prime Minister"). As opposed to Nation of Quebec's issue which deals with the consequences at the national, political level and so is appropriate.

Nor do the outcomes really work: this is about a representative electoral system, yet a small minority are going to enforce their views through iron will?

Maybe you could give an example of the political issue you're trying to address to make things clearer.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

The problem with this issue is that it's still not exactly something to be addressed to a national leader. Rather, it's about internal party matters. The leader of the party isn't necessarily the national leader (for example, in the UK the "Chairman of the Conservative Party" is not the "Prime Minister"). As opposed to Nation of Quebec's issue which deals with the consequences at the national, political level and so is appropriate.

Nor do the outcomes really work: this is about a representative electoral system, yet a small minority are going to enforce their views through iron will?

Maybe you could give an example of the political issue you're trying to address to make things clearer.

I see where you're coming from, and you're right I haven't done a good job with this.

I was thinking about what ideologies a political party has and who it can have. If it doesn't do it right, things like this:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ff-cameron

(which is where an MP is saying that the leader is a terrible person.) Or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Rebels

(a group of government MPs in the 1990s who were adamantly opposed to stopping something the government was doing)

The main thing I was inspired by are things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... k-to-roots in the British Labour party.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The effects I intended to have were: 1) Enforce MP discipline with an iron fist
2) Let MPs and party members do what they want.
3) If there are lots of parties, there will be no need to join one you don't 100% agree with
4) Enforce what all MPs of all parties can think so that this issue becomes moot.

This one differs from Quebec's (and it is a nice one. I'm on that thread) is that his one deals with people leaving the party but who are not 100% loyal.

A bit roundabout of a way of saying it, but I hope you get the gist. Any ideas on how I could write the issue without all this explanation being needed?