The Westminster System - A British Interactive AAR

[LordTempest]

You don't go in HoI3 AARs and complaining that Germans should not be winning Barbarossa!

I don't go into HoI3 AARs, period. And if I did, I wouldn't spend the whole time ranting about Hayek or Keynes and economic policy, or posting slogans in large fonts to that effect.

 

[Battle bunny]

My thanks for straw-manning the argument! How very mature and considerate! I never said 100% historicity, because that's absurd. What I am arguing against is the dogmatic insistence of taking real life convictions and, regardless of what has been going on in the IAAR, voting accordingly.

I don't see any issue with voting according to my real-life preferences though, since that's what I enjoy doing. Why are you trying to tell me how to vote anyways? I can decide that for myself very well, thank you. Go harass the surefire voters of the other parties for a while now, OK?

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Please people, let's keep this civil.
and let's vote for the communists. You know you want

 

[unmerged(216158)]

I don't see any issue with voting according to my real-life preferences though, since that's what I enjoy doing. Why are you trying to tell me how to vote anyways? I can decide that for myself very well, thank you. Go harass the surefire voters of the other parties for a while now, OK?

I do agree with you but he's not really harassing you...

 

[LordTempest]

I don't see any issue with voting according to my real-life preferences though, since that's what I enjoy doing. Why are you trying to tell me how to vote anyways? I can decide that for myself very well, thank you. Go harass the surefire voters of the other parties for a while now, OK?

Well, there is no issue apart from the fact that elections would be boring if everyone voted the same way every time. Don't be so hard on the guy.

 

[Enewald]

I don't go into HoI3 AARs, period. And if I did, I wouldn't spend the whole time ranting about Hayek or Keynes and economic policy, or posting slogans in large fonts to that effect.

Is someone doing that there?

The basic concept of AARland is having history rewritten. There is no plausibility here. I've seen Mongolia do WC in HoI2, Iroquois WC in Eu3, Ryukyu WC in Eu4, Japanese paratroopers only HoI3 WC and THOUSANDS of others more or less 'impossible' UNHISTORICAL outcomes!

 

[Contravarius]

Please people, let's keep this civil.
and let's vote for the communists. You know you want

Pheh. You really are convincing, my dearest Vote Switcher.
Do you really think they'll be able to tear this little country finally apart?

 

[Andrzej I]

I don't see any issue with voting according to my real-life preferences though, since that's what I enjoy doing. Why are you trying to tell me how to vote anyways? I can decide that for myself very well, thank you. Go harass the surefire voters of the other parties for a while now, OK?

I may have singled you out solely because you bluntly admitted to it, but I did - if you read - deign to say voters on the left and the right, as either way ruins the experience. As Tanzhang just posted above, voting the same way, every election, every IAAR makes this less an IAAR and more a poll of what real life political views the readership has. Why bother? That being said, my apologies if you feel particularly harassed. It wasn't my intention, which was merely to try to get less dogmatic votes which, in my opinion, ruin the IAAR.

 

[LordTempest]

Is someone doing that there?

Hey, you're the guy who's following every AAR in existence right now. Why are you asking me?

The basic concept of AARland is having history rewritten. There is no plausibility here. I've seen Mongolia do WC in HoI2, Iroquois WC in Eu3, Ryukyu WC in Eu4, Japanese paratroopers only HoI3 WC and THOUSANDS of others more or less 'impossible' UNHISTORICAL outcomes!

Some people like that sort of thing; others don't. I dont get why it's okay to bash one but not the other. We should be allowed to bash both opinions!

 

[unmerged(216158)]

Well, there is no issue apart from the fact that elections would be boring if everyone voted the same way every time. Don't be so hard on the guy.

Tanzhang would you suggest that orange liberals such as Rt. Honourable Grant Covington might be better served as a member of the Labour party?

Because mulling it over I can't help but feel that my views might work better within that party.

 

[unmerged(216158)]

Well, there is no issue apart from the fact that elections would be boring if everyone voted the same way every time. Don't be so hard on the guy.

Tanzhang would you suggest that orange liberals such as Rt. Honourable Grant Covington might be better served as a member of the Labour party?

Because mulling it over I can't help but feel that my views might work better within that party.

 

[LordTempest]

Tanzhang would you suggest that orange liberals such as Rt. Honourable Grant Covington might be better served as a member of the Labour party?

Because mulling it over I can't help but feel that my views might work better within that party.

I would suggest as always that you wait until the manifestoes are published before making your decision. One shouldn't make up his mind before then.

EDIT: also, double post.

 

[Battle bunny]

I do agree with you but he's not really harassing you...

Well, I don't know, it kinda came across that way. I explained to someone why I, and other communists, don't vote for Labour, and then (I think) two people jump at me, trying to guilt me with how terrible I am at voting. Maybe I was reading too much into it.

Well, there is no issue apart from the fact that elections would be boring if everyone voted the same way every time. Don't be so hard on the guy.

It might be interesting to think about how real-life elections would look like if everyone voted for the same party in every election. There would be no major swings every four years, instead there would generally be slow shifts over time as demographics change and parties slowly discredit (or un-discredit) themselves. Save for a few major scandals which rip apart a few parties, real-life elections would be just as boring as the scenario you describe. Instead, the AAR's and real life's elections are kinda similar: some people always vote for the same party, some people change their views a few times, some people vote unpredictably and some people just cast joke ballots. Maybe the ratios are different, but that's how it goes.

 

[ThaHoward]

Because you don't like laissez faire, but if I were a British 'liberal' promoting socialist virtues you would just keep smiling and telling how much right he is?

First you claim that people are playing unhistorical, then you whine that NLP seeks to ban commies, which is not very far fetched? Parties on the right trying to fight parties on the left, so unheard of! Commies getting banned, what, so unhistorical!

Would you be happy if this AAR mirrors OTL 100%? Then go get a history book. This is an interactive game, different people vote for different parties for different reasons. Don't keep complaining about how unrealistic it is that some party gets more support here than IRL: THIS IS A GAME. You don't go in HoI3 AARs and complaining that Germans should not be winning Barbarossa!

Enjoy the AAR.

Actually I find it quite a-historical that communism isn't banned yet.

 

[LordTempest]

It might be interesting to think about how real-life elections would look like if everyone voted for the same party in every elections. There would be no major swings every four years, instead there would generally be slow shifts over time as demographics change and parties slowly discredit (or un-discredit) themselves. Save for a few major scandals which rip apart a few parties, real-life elections would be just as boring as the scenario you describe.

That is basically what British politics was like for a century or two - your vote was basically decided by either your church or your class. Suffice it to say I don't find pre-modern elections to be terribly interesting.

Instead, the AAR's and real life's elections are kinda similar: some people always vote for the same party, some people change their views a few times, some people vote unpredictably and some people just cast joke ballots. Maybe the ratios are different, but that's how it goes.

Indeed, but smaller samples always lead to skewered results. I can totally understand why that might lead to a little frustration for some - though I don't think anyone here is actually proposing to dictate how anyone else chooses to vote.

 

[LordTempest]

Actually I find it quite a-historical that communism isn't banned yet.

Communism was never banned in Britain. The closest thing I can think of pertaining to Communism being banned in Britain is when Australia rejected a proposal to ban it in a referendum.

 

[Enewald]

I may have singled you out solely because you bluntly admitted to it, but I did - if you read - deign to say voters on the left and the right, as either way ruins the experience. As Tanzhang just posted above, voting the same way, every election, every IAAR makes this less an IAAR and more a poll of what real life political views the readership has. Why bother? That being said, my apologies if you feel particularly harassed. It wasn't my intention, merely to try to get less dogmatic votes which, in my opinion, ruin the IAAR.

We each have our own different backgrounds; we have all our own individual preferences, that are only known to us. And those preferences change. You may like X now, but not Y, next week it might be vice versa. Meanwhile you like ice cream now, and still will do next week. Some preferences change more, others less.
Our political points of view are a sum of preferences of the mind. You like nature very much, you might vote green. You really dig Marx, you might vote for communist. You might like conservative ideas, so you might vote Tory.
Next week someone might have changed the party they vote for, many others might have not. Different people have different reasons to vote for different parties. Individualism prevails, the freedom to choose the party that best represents you, or you maximize your utility by voting for some party and not voting for some party. Who knows, you only know your own preferences.

Some people are median voters, they are changing their loyalties more often than some views with more 'extreme' opinions(, relative to the middle ground always); whilst some people are born into commie families, educated about communism, grow up to become commies and keep voting commies until they die. Those are his preferences.

You can be a little bunny hopping between parties, but don't try to make others look 'guilty' because they do not mimic your actions.

Others roleplay more, others less. We are free to be different, free to form our own opinions, free to act without someone forcing us to do some decision that is against our own rational preferences.

'Dogma' does not exist. You can call opinions that differ from your point of view 'dogmatic, but that is merely your opinion. 'Das Ding an Sich' is not by nature 'dogmatic'. (can't find English words, sorry)

I'm sorry different people with different political point of views with different changes in their political point of views and levels of roleplay ruin your experience.

 

[Andrzej I]

Well, I don't know, it kinda came across that way. I explained to someone why I, and other communists, don't vote for Labour, and then (I think) two people jump at me, trying to guilt me with how terrible I am at voting. Maybe I was reading too much into it.

A little bit too much into it, perhaps. Again, my apologies that it came across that way. I merely think that voting solely upon real life views, and not based upon what has happened in the IAAR... ruins the IAAR. At least, when it's done in bulk. But eh, my opinion.

It might be interesting to think about how real-life elections would look like if everyone voted for the same party in every election. There would be no major swings every four years, instead there would generally be slow shifts over time as demographics change and parties slowly discredit (or un-discredit) themselves.

That would be somewhat fascinating, actually. Seeing the slow trend towards different issues and policies. I suppose a macro look at history would provide that, but it would be interesting how much slower history might have moved if membership in a party was permanent, and demanded you vote accordingly.

I'm sorry different people with different political point of views with different changes in their political point of views and levels of roleplay ruin your experience.

Different political views don't bother me, otherwise how would I be friends with both DensleyBlair and Contravarius at the same time? It's having those views solely because of real life biases, and awkwardly forcing them into the IAAR, regardless of the situation in said IAAR, that bothers me, because done en masse, it makes the elections and votes pointless.

 

[LordTempest]

'Dogma' does not exist. You can call opinions that differ from your point of view 'dogmatic, but that is merely your opinion. 'Das Ding an Sich' is not by nature 'dogmatic'. (can't find English words, sorry)

Enewald, I've said it hundreds of times but I'll say it again. People are not annoyed with you because you hold certain opinions - they are annoyed with you because you express those opinions incessantly and in a dogmatic fashion. If you were a communist or a social democrat or a fascist or a Green instead it wouldn't matter one little bit.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Pheh. You really are convincing, my dearest Vote Switcher.
Do you really think they'll be able to tear this little country finally apart?

Well, if we manage to convince all likeminded people to vote for them, their pursuit for an utopia would most certainly destroy Britain, if not leave a bloody stain in it's history to be remembered for decades, nay, centuries to come!
But we must vote the Hardline Communists.