Read: Changes in Game Operation

[unmerged(4271)]

Sorry, I disagree. Otherwise what's the incentive to join parties? Why not not have everyone be their own party or party of two and let everyone get a seat? Isn't that what happened with the first Eutopia?

Hugh, I think your situation is somewhat specific and does not merit a rules change.

YES, you are an active member of parliament, and that would gain you individual attention and notice. But that would work ONLY if we have a systemw here voters selected candidates individually.

The reason you are in parliament (Nat. Assembly) is that you got there was on the RD's ticket, a major national party. To leave and then to start a brand new party from scratch and expect that you should get similar electoral performance is a bit much to believe.

I think joining parties, and having to put up with the trials and hassles of compromise, debate, and party-building, should merit some reward, otherwise why have parties at all?

 

[unmerged(1522)]

The 4 player votes threshold is there to discourage party fragmentation. It's the functional equivalent of the old 4 member requirement (which no longer applies). Also keep in mind that the member requirement did, in actual fact, represent a threshold as well, so the new threshold isn't really so new.

As to the question of fairness: if anything, I think the new rule is *better* for small parties than the old one. Under the old rules, parties like the ELP or EPP wouldn't even be allowed to run. Under the new rule, they can run - they may just not make the threshold. In other words, under the old rule, small parties would definitely not have gotten into Parliament; under the new rule, they have at least a chance to get in by attracting non-members to vote for them.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

tis a good thing i say.

say for example when langley and i had left the cc if they had only 3 members left. under the old rules all 5 votes would be going to some other party. with the new rules if the EPP had 2 members and the cc 3 we would most likely pool our votes to get a right wing parliament member.

that is a little of a strech but a good example all in all i say

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
a good example all in all i say

It is. Under the old rules, there wasn't a whole lot of incentive to form alliances (since all parties involved had to have four members anyway). Under the new rules, alliances can actually make a difference.

 

[unmerged(5730)]

I think that you should add some completely random votes.

So that first is the players votes casted.

Then is Blade!'s votes cast. (as many number of votes as the player's)

And then is some completely random votes cast. (as many number of votes as the player's)

This would bring more flexibility to the game, and could bring different coalitions to power, so that we don't have the situation that one party or coalition rules Eutopia always.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

if we bring in a random factor then it should be 2 dice thrown and that is number of random votes. nothing major. we dont want some fringe party getting 4 parliament seats

but lets go with this for 1 term then bring a random factor in perhaps

 

[Jools]

I don't agree with craig on the "fringe party" status...

reason #1

1. Who will decide what is fringe and what is not?
2. "Fringe" parties sometimes get to rule too...

 

[unmerged(5730)]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
if we bring in a random factor then it should be 2 dice thrown and that is number of random votes. nothing major. we dont want some fringe party getting 4 parliament seats

but lets go with this for 1 term then bring a random factor in perhaps

Let's say that a 100 sided dice is thrown (meaning randomizer of any kind here as these dizes are pretty rare) and the outcome shows how many percent of the players votes that becomes random votes.

let's say that there's 50 players votes cast.

The dice says 60.

Then the number of Random votes would be 50*0.60=30

Wouldn't that be quite fair?

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
if we bring in a random factor then it should be 2 dice thrown and that is number of random votes. nothing major. we dont want some fringe party getting 4 parliament seats

Why not??

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Kent I Wallmi
Let's say that a 100 sided dice is thrown (meaning randomizer of any kind here as these dizes are pretty rare) and the outcome shows how many percent of the players votes that becomes random votes.

let's say that there's 50 players votes cast.

The dice says 60.

Then the number of Random votes would be 50*0.60=30

Wouldn't that be quite fair?

No it would not be fair!

How on earth is that fair? It is fair only that it is random and everyone has an equal chance at winning, but it has nothing to do with : creativity, dedication, persuasion, strategy, time, skill, or any of the things that should make a difference.

Why not just put all of our names in a bad and draw them out to decide who serves in what office?

Who would want to play a game like that, where it is all random?

Geez, that would be like signing up to run a race and everyone just draws a random number to see who gets to win....

This would gut the soul out of this Forum.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Say the EUtopian Dictators Party, consisting of four people (one wants to be dictator, one chief of the army, one chief of security, and the last an advisor), is founded. Their sole goal is to establish a dictatorship.

Under the roll-of-the-dice system, the Dictators Party could win--even with 4 members, if Blade! rolls the right number, they are in office!

 

[unmerged(1522)]

I'm inclined to agree with heagarty on the randomizer element. The idea behind additional votes is to avoid complete predictability, but also to reward parties that do well. Frankly, I don't want to see a party that contributes nothing worthwhile win the elections on the strength of sheer luck. That would be unfair to all the players who *do* put a lot of effort into the game.

Regarding the problem of entrenched party dominance, I think the solution is relatively simple: if an opposition party is active, performs well and responds well to official game events, I have no doubt that Blade! would take this into account when distributing additional votes. In other words, if people are worried about continued dominance by one party (or several), they have every possibility to change the situation.

 

[The_Hawk]

Though of course one might argue, in corollary, that entrenched parties, by virtue of being entrenched, have a far better chance to "change the situation", since they will be in positions of power which can influence policy more readily than those on the outside of government (or who only have a toehold, such as one MNA in Parliament.)

Which is not to say that I think there's anything wrong with a system that encourages such a result, because it's realistic. It's not coincidence or chance that has given the U.S. two major parties for centuries. Entrenchment, policies designed to protect those in power, and good old-fashioned familiarity all play a role too. As the (U.S.) poli-sci majors say, "40% of people always vote one way, 40% always vote the other, and it's the other 20% you have to worry about."

 

[Blade!]

Parties in power, will always have the disadvantage.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by The_Hawk
Though of course one might argue, in corollary, that entrenched parties, by virtue of being entrenched, have a far better chance to "change the situation" [...] Which is not to say that I think there's anything wrong with a system that encourages such a result, because it's realistic.

Yup, and yup.

I also suspect, however, that Blade! will take things like duration of tenure into account when assigning additional votes (his last post certainly suggests that parties in power won't reap all that many benefits from being in government ), especially since the situation of a two-party system doesn't obtain in Eutopia and the possibility of change is greater. E.g., after three terms of a (hypothetical ) MP-EPP coalition, Blade! may decide that the floating voters (the 20% in your example, basically - except we have a lot more floating voters in Eutopia ) are simply fed up and want change.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Yeah, or he might have them compare you to Mugabe!

There are some other ways to control this, via the players and not Rules, that we can adopt as well, if we need to. I may throw out a few ideas IC to start debate.

 

[unmerged(5730)]

Just a note, I think that you, Blade!, should take in consideration that Eutopia has been a Monarchy for quite long, and that the emount of Royalists should be pretty high when decideing your votes

 

[Blade!]

Originally posted by Kent I Wallmi
Just a note, I think that you, Blade!, should take in consideration that Eutopia has been a Monarchy for quite long, and that the emount of Royalists should be pretty high when decideing your votes

My mother in law keeps nagging me about the same thing.

 

[Amric]

France was a monarchy for a long time too, remember? The French Revolution and Napolean came along to destroy the fledgling republic. Made himself Emperor. Then eventually another republic came to power. Just because a nation IS a monarchy for a long time and changes doesn't mean that the vast majority wish to RETURN to the monarchy.

 

[HJ Tulp]

France changed 6 times or something like that. Does mean that there is a change of Monarchy returning.