[SUBMITTED] Honey, we hung the parliament

by **Gnejs** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:04 am

This is our first attempt at writing an issue. Feedback will be much appreciated.

EDIT 1: Second draft, updated after feedback from Annihilators of Chan Island. Also edited: new title for the issue. First draft in spoiler at the bottom.

EDIT 2: Third draft, updated after suggestions from Golgothastan. Changed validity as the fringe party no longer is "extremist" and "anti-immigration". Changed first option from outlawing the fringe party to raising the election threshhold. Effect line i option 5 not updated as of now, need to rethink it. Second draft in spoiler at the bottom.

EDIT 3: Fourth draft, made fringe party explicitly "anti-government", updated effect line and suggested stats for option 5.

EDIT 4: New draft.

EDIT 5: Submitted.

Title

Honey, we hung the parliament

Description

The recent national elections in @@NAME@@ saw declining support for the established parties, and a big success for the unabashedly populist anarcho-communist party Death to the State, gaining the unreliable fringe party, despised by all other parties, a surprisingly high number of seats. Now none of the traditional political groups can form a governing majority, sparking a debate on how the situation should be dealt with.

Validity

Not valid where elections are outlawed.

Options

[option]"This is a farce", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of parliament for one of the distinguished old parties that just barely managed to hold on to their seat. "These lunatics openly state that they will do anything in their power to incapacitate @@NAME@@'s political system. I say we ban anyone with a criminal record from entering the parliament, that'll keep them out, and then we can sort out everything in peace. I suppose it might affect some others as well. I'm pretty sure I'm clean... Anyways, we'll manage, I'd wager."
[effect]the legislative process has become a nightmare as only the ghosts of sessions past are allowed in the chambers.
[stats]Political freedom decreases significantly

[option]"Are you insane? There'll be no one left!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of parliament for the other old distinguished party. "Let's just strike a bargain, you and me, stating that the biggest political group in parliament forms the government, and the opposition group agrees not to put forward any proposals for the entire term. That means we'll rule for now, but you know, we'll do the same thing for you, should you turn out the biggest group the next time around."
[effect]the biggest opposition group twiddle their thumbs as a minority redesign society according to their ideals
[stats]Political freedom decreases slightly, political apathy increases, corruption increases.

[option]"The obvious thing to do is to form a grand coalition containing the two biggest parties", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, noted political commentator. "It's time for the politicians to act like grown-ups and properly handle this situation. Sure, they rarely agree on anything, but really, what's the worst that can happen?"
[effect]the new government has 99 ministers and nothing gets done
[stats] Economy decreases slightly

[option]"These ideas are all terrible", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a former member of parliament for a small liberal party, who lost their seat to a drunk skinhead. "The only real solution is holding a new election. The people of @@NAME@@ are smart, I am sure they'll realize how stupid they were the first time around, and restore the order of things. Doing the election all over again will be costly, sure, but I really need this gig, eh, I mean, the nation's ability to be governed is at stake, yes, that's the one."
[effect]politicians demand do-overs when they don't agree with election outcomes
[stats] Taxes increase

[option]"Or you just let us be a part of the government, or at least let be part of your group in parliament", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, leader of Death to the State. "The people voted for us, after all, and this blatant disregard for the popular vote is shocking. We'll want something in return for our support, of course, but we're not greedy. Just implement some of our campaign promises about cleansing the state apparatus from the bourgeois plague of bureaucracy , and you'll get your majority."
[effect]top-politicians self-administrate as all ministry employees have been fired
[stats]Political freedom increases, spending on administration decreases significantly, economy drops slightly

Fourth draft:

Third draft:

Second draft:

First draft:

by **Annihilators of Chan Island** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:57 am

This is a pretty interesting issue you have here. I suspect that something like it exists, but never the less this is very good.

Having the fringe party be ''semi-nazi'' is probably not going to go down well. I suggest just keeping it at ''populist''. The name of this fringe party reveals what it is anyway.

I feel that effect line could have been made more amusing or extremely. Maybe ''the political elite routinely outlaw any groups who seem to threaten their positions.'' or something like that.

Option 2's description of the speaker is a little bit too long. I'd just keep it at having her be a member of the major party. The whole 'they won one more seat'' thing is a bit much.
The option is also very, very long. I know, I'm often not one to talk about this, but maybe find a way of wording it snappier?

Love option 3, although I definitely felt that effect line could have been something like ''the government has 99 ministers and nothing gets done.''
While on that, why are they specifically male? Most if not all of these options could easily be advocated by a member of either gender.

Option 4 and 5 are spot-on.

Overall: Very nice.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:59 am

There's no need to include stats in your draft. The Issues Editors sort that out.

by **Gnejs** » Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:55 pm

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:This is a pretty interesting issue you have here. I suspect that something like it exists, but never the less this is very good.

Having the fringe party be ''semi-nazi'' is probably not going to go down well. I suggest just keeping it at ''populist''. The name of this fringe party reveals what it is anyway.

I feel that effect line could have been made more amusing or extremely. Maybe ''the political elite routinely outlaw any groups who seem to threaten their positions.'' or something like that.

Option 2's description of the speaker is a little bit too long. I'd just keep it at having her be a member of the major party. The whole 'they won one more seat'' thing is a bit much.
The option is also very, very long. I know, I'm often not one to talk about this, but maybe find a way of wording it snappier?

Love option 3, although I definitely felt that effect line could have been something like ''the government has 99 ministers and nothing gets done.''
While on that, why are they specifically male? Most if not all of these options could easily be advocated by a member of either gender.

Option 4 and 5 are spot-on.

Overall: Very nice.

Thank you for your input and some great suggestions. I'll be making changes to reflect your feedback, like removing "semi-nazi" (fair point), shorten option 2 (I agree it's a bit tedious) and rethink the effect on option 1. I really like the 99-effect, can't believe I didn't think of that. I'll put that right in. Concerning gender bias I was actually aiming for the complete opposite, by making some of the speakers @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, and some of them @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, for example in option 2 and 4. But I suppose you could just make them all @@RANDOMNAME@@, obviously none of these options need to be advocated by any specific gender. Thank you again!

Kaboomlandia wrote:There's no need to include stats in your draft. The Issues Editors sort that out.

Ok, thanks. That's good to know. I saw others doing it, and I thought it was interesting to think about potential stat outcomes. I'll probably leave them there, but I harbour no illusions that these would be the final outcomes of the options, should the issue be accepted.

by **Golgothastan** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:10 am

I think, as written, this is too similar to Issue #230. While that issue is about banning extremists and this is more about mitigating them through parliamentary strategy, there's still a lot of overlap. I think you would be better off focusing on the coalition-building aspect rather than the "semi-Nazi" aspect

by **Gnejs** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:36 am

Golgothastan wrote:I think, as written, this is too similar to Issue #230. While that issue is about banning extremists and this is more about mitigating them through parliamentary strategy, there's still a lot of overlap. I think you would be better off focusing on the coalition-building aspect rather than the "semi-Nazi" aspect

Oh, I can't remember ever receiving that issue, and I obviously missed it when going through that list. It's pretty funny that both issues actually use the word "travesty" in the first option. I'll change that.

Maybe the issue could stand on its own if I changed the fringe party from being a typical "anti-immigration" party to just a general unreliable/wacky populist party? It would probably require a new effect for option 5. I'll have to think about that, but I'd glady welcome some suggestions.

by **Golgothastan** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:20 am

You could see whether Nation of Quebec has any thoughts, as they have written several issue ideas on parliamentary government and might have some thoughts.

Gnejs wrote:Maybe the issue could stand on its own if I changed the fringe party from being a typical "anti-immigration" party to just a general unreliable/wacky populist party? It would probably require a new effect for option 5. I'll have to think about that, but I'd glady welcome some suggestions.

Perhaps, yes. Another idea would be to have it be a fringe left wing party (refusing to implement austerity or repay loans? pushing policies that are too extreme for the political majority to stomach? jeopardising relationships with a foreign military ally?).

by **Gnejs** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:54 am

Golgothastan wrote:You could see whether Nation of Quebec has any thoughts, as they have written several issue ideas on parliamentary government and might have some thoughts.
Gnejs wrote:Maybe the issue could stand on its own if I changed the fringe party from being a typical "anti-immigration" party to just a general unreliable/wacky populist party? It would probably require a new effect for option 5. I'll have to think about that, but I'd glady welcome some suggestions.

Perhaps, yes. Another idea would be to have it be a fringe left wing party (refusing to implement austerity or repay loans? pushing policies that are too extreme for the political majority to stomach? jeopardising relationships with a foreign military ally?).

Thanks, that's a good idea. I did some changes to the draft in the first post. Do you think it looks better now? If not I could try writing it as an extreme leftist party.

My biggest problem with the current draft is coming up with a funny effect for letting the fringe party be a junior partner, seeing as they're not explicitly right- or left-wing. I suppose that would be made easier if the party was rebranded as left-wing, but I kind of like the idea that they're just unreliable and despised, because then you could basically have them do anything.

by **Annihilators of Chan Island** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:51 am

Gnejs wrote:
Golgothastan wrote:You could see whether Nation of Quebec has any thoughts, as they have written several issue ideas on parliamentary government and might have some thoughts.

Perhaps, yes. Another idea would be to have it be a fringe left wing party (refusing to implement austerity or repay loans? pushing policies that are too extreme for the political majority to stomach? jeopardising relationships with a foreign military ally?).

Thanks, that's a good idea. I did some changes to the draft in the first post. Do you think it looks better now? If not I could try writing it as an extreme leftist party.

My biggest problem with the current draft is coming up with a funny effect for letting the fringe party be a junior partner, seeing as they're not explicitly right- or left-wing. I suppose that would be made easier if the party was rebranded as left-wing, but I kind of like the idea that they're just unreliable and despised, because then you could basically have them do anything.

You could have them be a deliberate joke party, with some deliberately wacko policies in their that the leaders of the party don't even take seriously. One British joke candidate last election had a promise that could suit your effect: an entire town (IRL the target was Broadstairs, in Kent) was to be completely destroyed because it had too many fascists in there. Maybe you could have something like that?

by **Gnejs** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:18 pm

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:
Gnejs wrote:
Thanks, that's a good idea. I did some changes to the draft in the first post. Do you think it looks better now? If not I could try writing it as an extreme leftist party.

My biggest problem with the current draft is coming up with a funny effect for letting the fringe party be a junior partner, seeing as they're not explicitly right- or left-wing. I suppose that would be made easier if the party was rebranded as left-wing, but I kind of like the idea that they're just unreliable and despised, because then you could basically have them do anything.

You could have them be a deliberate joke party, with some deliberately wacko policies in their that the leaders of the party don't even take seriously. One British joke candidate last election had a promise that could suit your effect: an entire town (IRL the target was Broadstairs, in Kent) was to be completely destroyed because it had too many fascists in there. Maybe you could have something like that?

That's a funny idea! But I went with making the fringe party explicitly anti-government, and updated the effects and stats of option 5 to reflect that. Pretty extreme, but I feel it's foreshadowed in the issue.

What do you think, is this starting to look like it's approaching submission? I'll be going away for a week on monday, so I'll just leave this up here for more comments, if there are any.

by **Annihilators of Chan Island** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:39 pm

No comments really. Looks pretty good as is.

Love option 2's ''our cute little liberal and leftist partners.''

by **Gnejs** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:13 am

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:No comments really. Looks pretty good as is.

Love option 2's ''our cute little liberal and leftist partners.''

Thanks! As said I'll leave it up here for a while before submitting, as to take in any other potential feedback.

by **Golgothastan** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:27 am

I like the new title.

I still think the introduction is too long, and option #2 is definitely too long. The only time where there's a wall of text is where it's a deliberate part of the issue (e.g. the pro-filibuster option of that issue). While the details are nice for a pol-sci student perhaps, the situation can pretty much be summed up as:

"The recent national election has seen unprecedented success for a populist and (previously) fringe party despised by mainstream politicians, who are consequently having a hard time forming a governing coalition."

The gendered names are unnecessary: just change "his" to "their" in #1 and #4. We generally only use gendered names where the gender is important or gendered pronouns are unavoidable.

I don't understand the use of "prolific" in option 5. I also think that's a dangerous option as the party is so vague. Perhaps another way of expressing the problem is that because they were previously a fringe party, their officials are all completely unsuited for ministry.

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:02 am

Golgothastan wrote:just change "his" to "their" in #1 and #4.

No.

by **Gnejs** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:40 am

Golgothastan wrote:I like the new title.

I still think the introduction is too long, and option #2 is definitely too long. The only time where there's a wall of text is where it's a deliberate part of the issue (e.g. the pro-filibuster option of that issue). While the details are nice for a pol-sci student perhaps, the situation can pretty much be summed up as:

"The recent national election has seen unprecedented success for a populist and (previously) fringe party despised by mainstream politicians, who are consequently having a hard time forming a governing coalition."

The gendered names are unnecessary: just change "his" to "their" in #1 and #4. We generally only use gendered names where the gender is important or gendered pronouns are unavoidable.

I don't understand the use of "prolific" in option 5. I also think that's a dangerous option as the party is so vague. Perhaps another way of expressing the problem is that because they were previously a fringe party, their officials are all completely unsuited for ministry.

Thank you for your input. The "pol-sci needs to kill his darlings" is pretty spot on, and a fair point. I'll address the length issue and the gendering when I have proper computer access next week.

Regarding option 5, one might be able to retain the current idea by making the party less vague and the effects less extreme. Perhaps the party name could spell out their agenda, like renaming them "Death to bureaucrats!" or the "Mandarin Assassination Squad". For an alternative, less extreme, effect I was thinking: "Top-politicians self-administrate, as all ministry employees have been fired", with suggested stats being that political freedom increases, spending on administration decreases significantly, a slight drop in economy and taxes going down. Sound better?

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:00 pm

This is still a mess, with all due respect. Two options contain a grand coalition, two call for an immediate re-vote, the coalition and threshold business assume all nations with elections are naturally parliamentary democracies (though past issues have referenced a national parliament, how detailed how they been about the way the body functions?) -- and the description of the party is way too vague. Though I assume UKIP was the inspiration for this issue, what was wrong with having a left-wing party be the "bad guys"? It would make it a bit more original.

Barring that, I would suggest you simplify the choices. One option for a re-vote, one option for "grand coalition," one for a "minority government," one for letting the inmates help run the asylum, and drop the threshold thing. It's one thing to assume all democratic nations use a parliamentary system; it's another to also assume they have all abandoned first-past-the-post.

by **Gnejs** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:32 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:This is still a mess, with all due respect. Two options contain a grand coalition, two call for an immediate re-vote, the coalition and threshold business assume all nations with elections are naturally parliamentary democracies (though past issues have referenced a national parliament, how detailed how they been about the way the body functions?) -- and the description of the party is way too vague. Though I assume UKIP was the inspiration for this issue, what was wrong with having a left-wing party be the "bad guys"? It would make it a bit more original.

Barring that, I would suggest you simplify the choices. One option for a re-vote, one option for "grand coalition," one for a "minority government," one for letting the inmates help run the asylum, and drop the threshold thing. It's one thing to assume all democratic nations use a parliamentary system; it's another to also assume they have all abandoned first-past-the-post.

Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been traveling without a decent connection.

Thanks for the input. Regarding the messiness of the issue, that is actually intentional, well at least partly. The RL inspiration comes from the months after the 2014 general elections in Sweden, where a far-right party came in a position much alike the fringe party in the issue. These were confusing and indeed «messy» times where politicians from left and right, commentators and pretty much everyone in the political mainstream was discussing how to «handle» the situation and govern the country without relying on support from the far-right. I’ve tried to recreate that feeling in the issue, with many options and partly overlapping solutions. That being said, I don’t want it to be too messy.

You make a fair point about the threshold. If anything, the game rather presumes the opposite as the default situation for democracies, just look at #360 and #120. If I was really into the threshold option, I suppose I could make it exclusive to nations who picked a certain option on those issues. But I’m not, so I’m going to let that go. Although, even though I realize your advice on simplifying the choices is probably the smart move, I’m going to stick with five options, mainly because I like the dynamic between them (option one has been rewritten).

I never went with making them left wing because I’m working on another draft (not posted yet) where a leftist party will be sort of the «bad guy». But seeing as two of you made the left wing remark, I’ve decided to make them a special brand of left wing, which allows me to keep the effect line.

Ok, so, new draft in the OP. I’ll be looking to submit this soon, we’ll se how it fares.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Hmm. If it's going to sound too much like the upcoming issue, maybe try experimenting with an "evil centrist" party?

Like the Reform Party, only it's run by a complete megalomaniac and everyone who supports it is assumed to be either partly crazy or just throwing their vote away? Oh wait, that was the real Reform Party. Nevermind.

by **Annihilators of Chan Island** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:32 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Hmm. If it's going to sound too much like the upcoming issue, maybe try experimenting with an "evil centrist" party?

Like the Reform Party, only it's run by a complete megalomaniac and everyone who supports it is assumed to be either partly crazy or just throwing their vote away? Oh wait, that was the real Reform Party. Nevermind.

I like this evil centrist idea. Not a thing that shows up very often anywhere. The guy advocating for coalition between the player and the evil centrists could then insist that they are actually not so different too.

by **Gnejs** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:05 am

The other issues left wing party will be pretty different, so I think this could stand without risking too big of an overlap. But I kinda like the idea of the centrist party. Were you thinking 1) centrist in name, but with wacked-out policies; 2) centrist in name and policy but with a nutcase leader; or 3) centrist in name, policy and leader, totally inoffensive all around?

I think it could be very funny and bizarre if one went with nr 3. The four first options would be more or less the same as they are now, whereas the last one could be:

"Or you just let us be a part of the government, or at least let be part of your group in parliament", says @@RANDONAME@@, leader of Quantum Satis. "The people voted for us, after all. And we're actually not crazy! All we want is a slight decrease in taxes and more funding for public education, that's it. Seriously, that's it!"

And the effect could be: nothing is out of the ordinary.

Maybe a bit too bizarre?

by **Golgothastan** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:58 am

#3 needs to explain what a grand coalition actually is for those who may be unfamiliar with the term (I don't believe it's used much in US politics, for example, being much more a function of European style systems).

I'm uneasy about the use of the term "liberal". That means different - some would say completely opposite - things depending on the country you're from.

by **Gnejs** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:09 am

Golgothastan wrote:#3 needs to explain what a grand coalition actually is for those who may be unfamiliar with the term (I don't believe it's used much in US politics, for example, being much more a function of European style systems).

I'm uneasy about the use of the term "liberal". That means different - some would say completely opposite - things depending on the country you're from.

Good point. Grand coalition explained in #3, whereas I took out the line with "liberal and leftist partners" all togheter. The option is long enough anyways. If no one gives a passionate defense for the wacky "centrist" idea, I'm going to submit this as it stands in the OP.

by **Gnejs** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:04 am

Ok, I've submitted this as it stands in the OP. We'll see how it fares. Thanks a lot to everyone for comments and suggestions.

by **East Terrallamus** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:22 am

I was always under the assumption that all elections were won completely by the player...

by **East Terrallamus** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:26 am

Golgothastan wrote:#3 needs to explain what a grand coalition actually is for those who may be unfamiliar with the term (I don't believe it's used much in US politics, for example, being much more a function of European style systems).

I'm uneasy about the use of the term "liberal". That means different - some would say completely opposite - things depending on the country you're from.

Agreed, The Australian Liberal National Party would be considered quite conservative in America.

[SUBMITTED] Honey, we hung the parliament

[SUBMITTED] Honey, we hung the parliament

Who is online