Maklohi Vai wrote:New Bierstaat wrote:1. True, maybe we could just add in "recognized official parties" and an option for an organization to be recognized as a party, but then again, being covered under this bill doesn't really determine whether you are or are not an official party. The party may, though, not want its members to be able to join other parties. My policy for my map is that I won't add a party to the map until it has 3 members. It is my experience that most parties with 3 members end up making it to 10. But that's irrelevant to this discussion...
2. See 1.
3. I don't think that someone who's in one party should also be allowed to be in another, whether that party is official or not. Would it make any sense for you as a Red-Green to all of a sudden join the Market Socialists? No, because they don't agree with you ideologically. Parties live and die based on their ability to recruit members who agree ideologically with them. It helps keep the number of parties down. If we allow people to be in more than one party, we could have four or five people start parties with the same ideology, and people could be in all of them, because they all agree, and all 4-5 parties would want to be on the map. It would not turn out well. Should I be able to be in the LCP and the CFE both even though I do agree with both ideologically? Again, realism. Can a British MP be both a Tory and a Lib Dem? Unofficial parties should be no different. What if they reach 10 members - do they then have to kick out their members who are in another party and go back to unofficial status? Can they then rejoin and start the cycle again? Most unofficial parties exist because they want to be official parties, and for those that don't, I don't really see why they need to be parties at all.
(Addressing #3 only)
I understand what you're saying, and I think at this point putting up to a vote will determine what side of this argument the senate comes down on.
I agree.




