Let’s play a game /mlpol/. We create a parliament and create board rules and make other things regarding the board.
>How does it work.
Step one, we need some political parties. For a party to exist you need to write up a party manifesto make a logo and chose a color. The manifesto must also state where you lie on political issues, this can be super broad or very specific, but the more people that understand what you stand for the easier it'll be to get anons to vote for your party. It also might be helpful to name/tripfag if you create a party. Here an example:
Party Party Not a real party as of now
Manifesto:
1. /mlpol/ is a fun board.
2. /mlpol/ is a nice board.
3. Being no fun will not be allowed. If you are not fun, you'll be BANNED!
4. If you’re a commie you’re not fun.
5. On Sunday you need to post horse pussy at least once or you’re not being fun.
Stance on issues is conservative center left. Distributism is good if effective. But destroying traditions is no fun!
Ect
As soon as we get two parties up and running the two parties will get one seat each seat and all parties that join will also get two seats. There is a 10-party cap so that we don't have a terribly large amount of anons making parties that are very similar.
After the parties are formed we can get to the meat of it which is anons voting. The votes here will work differently. Say which party you want to join and the party will be given an extra seat. Your vote can also be used to remove a seat from a political party. Everyone including party founders get three votes with their ID for max chaos. The game will continue till we reach 23, and as soon as its hit voting is over.
Once voting is over we can go full LARP and each party leader, or the person who made the party and wrote the manifesto, will chose anons who loyally voted for him to become members of parliament. Here we will draft legislation and make arbitrary rules based on the manifesto. All which will be non-binding unless, say the mods for whatever reason don't veto it when it leaves the lower house of parliament.
SO LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
/go/ - Golden Oaks
Thread Repository
File (): 182018BAC77046BEDFE1FE71DDBBDECC-1242510.png (1.2 MB, 2222x2222, mlpol parlment with seats.png)
441 replies and 154 files omitted.
>>3038
If the majority of coalition members on both sides decide to prematurely end a coalition, then it would be reasonable to allow that to happen.
As for term limits, It should at least be set to two election cycles.
If the majority of coalition members on both sides decide to prematurely end a coalition, then it would be reasonable to allow that to happen.
As for term limits, It should at least be set to two election cycles.
>>3039
Well, the confederacy doesn’t really operate by mutual agreement to secede, but that’s a start. Any limits to reelection for both coalitions and our parties?
Well, the confederacy doesn’t really operate by mutual agreement to secede, but that’s a start. Any limits to reelection for both coalitions and our parties?
>>3040
I'm thinking that, once a coalition is finished, the parties that made up that coalition can't form a coalition with each other again for two election cycles.
If we're talking about party representatives, the party leader should get to determine who fills which of their party's seats. If we're talking about party majorities in the parliament, then I don't think there should be a limit, personally.
I'm thinking that, once a coalition is finished, the parties that made up that coalition can't form a coalition with each other again for two election cycles.
If we're talking about party representatives, the party leader should get to determine who fills which of their party's seats. If we're talking about party majorities in the parliament, then I don't think there should be a limit, personally.
>>3031
>>3032
Seconded
>>3038
I am in favor of standing coalitions. As long as all parties don't split into two coalitions with no wild cards (unlikely given so many differences), there should be no problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the PFP formed a coalition with the SRP, as we are largely similar ideologically. It would serve us both as the AFP, with its authoritarian goals, is an unofficial rival to the PFP and the Cult is a natural rival of the SRP because of religious differences.
>>3032
Seconded
>>3038
I am in favor of standing coalitions. As long as all parties don't split into two coalitions with no wild cards (unlikely given so many differences), there should be no problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the PFP formed a coalition with the SRP, as we are largely similar ideologically. It would serve us both as the AFP, with its authoritarian goals, is an unofficial rival to the PFP and the Cult is a natural rival of the SRP because of religious differences.
>>3042
Eh... Epona is cool. We may be enemies, but we both hate the jews. Isn’t common hatred amazing?
But looking through their manifesto, I don’t see too much I can fault them on. They just want a fair shot. If they would allow Christian teachings to be allowed to be taught as well as their ancient beliefs, we might even collaborate on some policies. Who knows? (Though we don’t have that jurisdiction) Though it would be a rocky relationship. I would have to remind myself not to crusade.
Eh... Epona is cool. We may be enemies, but we both hate the jews. Isn’t common hatred amazing?
But looking through their manifesto, I don’t see too much I can fault them on. They just want a fair shot. If they would allow Christian teachings to be allowed to be taught as well as their ancient beliefs, we might even collaborate on some policies. Who knows? (Though we don’t have that jurisdiction) Though it would be a rocky relationship. I would have to remind myself not to crusade.
>>3045
It definitely wouldn’t last once all the threats had been taken care of, but friendship is magic, we will see what happens.
It definitely wouldn’t last once all the threats had been taken care of, but friendship is magic, we will see what happens.
File (): 52616D066FC7DFC863A9AA6A28F39C1A-214730.jpg (209.7 KB, 1280x960, 1494561939905.jpg)
File (): 0EA92C7FDFD0801A6E6E7158B6188BC8-235687.png (230.2 KB, 822x894, 1491143453019.png)
>>3048
No problem. I’m just hanging around thinking about what we could debate next. Got any suggestions?
No problem. I’m just hanging around thinking about what we could debate next. Got any suggestions?
>>3050
I was thinking it would good if not all seats in parlement were up for reelection simultaneously.
So one sunday a quarter of the seats would be up, then the next a different quarter and so on. Would aid long term stability and add an interesting political effect of worrying more about public opinion when you have seats up for reelection soon, and being able to act more freely when your seat is "secured" for a while as it were.
I was thinking it would good if not all seats in parlement were up for reelection simultaneously.
So one sunday a quarter of the seats would be up, then the next a different quarter and so on. Would aid long term stability and add an interesting political effect of worrying more about public opinion when you have seats up for reelection soon, and being able to act more freely when your seat is "secured" for a while as it were.
>>3051
I saw anons arguing over it. I have no artistic talents so I don’t have too much to input on it. I think it couldn’t hurt even if it didn’t have much practical use. I think it would be a nice addition to get people invested.
I saw anons arguing over it. I have no artistic talents so I don’t have too much to input on it. I think it couldn’t hurt even if it didn’t have much practical use. I think it would be a nice addition to get people invested.
>>3052
Possibly, though how do we figure out what seats go up for reelection? I’m not used to the parliamentary system so I don’t know how such a process would go.
Possibly, though how do we figure out what seats go up for reelection? I’m not used to the parliamentary system so I don’t know how such a process would go.
File (): 6D5ED406D42C3C22ADA2A131B0A514E8-1498785.png (1.4 MB, 2222x2222, Proposed Districts.png)
>>3051
Honestly that sounds like it would be a fun project to itself. /mlp/ has a map of /mlp/ and we should have one of /mlpol/ just for the hell of it anyways.
>>3054
Its not normal for a parliamentary system's lower house to do so especially if its not bicameral.
I think this requires autism in general for how to organize the parliamentary system we have at hand.
Questions we need to answer.
>How to format elections
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
>How many seats should be in parliament
>How people in the parliament vote.
I prefer sticking with a system somewhat like what we had last time but with more obvious voting and adding a few seats into parliament.
Honestly that sounds like it would be a fun project to itself. /mlp/ has a map of /mlp/ and we should have one of /mlpol/ just for the hell of it anyways.
>>3054
Its not normal for a parliamentary system's lower house to do so especially if its not bicameral.
I think this requires autism in general for how to organize the parliamentary system we have at hand.
Questions we need to answer.
>How to format elections
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
>How many seats should be in parliament
>How people in the parliament vote.
I prefer sticking with a system somewhat like what we had last time but with more obvious voting and adding a few seats into parliament.
>>3057
>How to format elections
Is there a polling service that is reletively tamper proof? I believe the idea is to allow all anons to vote. This should probably be done on a seat by seat basis, instead of unilaterally one vote = one seat as we had in the begining. What I mean is each seat up for election should be voted for, individually.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
I see no problem with allowing new parties who want to run into the process, aside from the one bill we've passed banning gryphons and jews.
>How many seats should be in parliament
I believe we settled on adding six more last time we discussed this, it is acceptable to me but I still push for a hard maximum limit on seats.
>How people in the parliament vote.
We need to determine when parlement is officially in session. Only representatives of parties with seats in parlement should be allowed to propose legislation. to pass a bill requires both 50% of seats and 50% of parties represented in parliament to pass.
>How to format elections
Is there a polling service that is reletively tamper proof? I believe the idea is to allow all anons to vote. This should probably be done on a seat by seat basis, instead of unilaterally one vote = one seat as we had in the begining. What I mean is each seat up for election should be voted for, individually.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
I see no problem with allowing new parties who want to run into the process, aside from the one bill we've passed banning gryphons and jews.
>How many seats should be in parliament
I believe we settled on adding six more last time we discussed this, it is acceptable to me but I still push for a hard maximum limit on seats.
>How people in the parliament vote.
We need to determine when parlement is officially in session. Only representatives of parties with seats in parlement should be allowed to propose legislation. to pass a bill requires both 50% of seats and 50% of parties represented in parliament to pass.
>>3059
How would seat by seat voting work? Wouldn’t the same anons vote for the same party to take the seat each time? If you could explain it to me a little more, I would appreciate it.
How would seat by seat voting work? Wouldn’t the same anons vote for the same party to take the seat each time? If you could explain it to me a little more, I would appreciate it.
>>2738
I would like to introduce the gay retard party. All of the gay retards will be put into this party by default.
I would like to introduce the gay retard party. All of the gay retards will be put into this party by default.
>>3059
Again, why not have a proportional representation voting system? For the duration of the voting process (we were talking about making it the entirety of Sunday), all Anons can vote three times for any party or parties they want. Each seat is worth a specific percentage of the total votes (currently 4.35% from 23 seats). At the end of the voting period, all of the votes are tallied and the seats are handed out according to the percentage of votes they received, so for every 4.35% of the total votes a party got, they get a seat. Any remaining seats are given to the parties with the largest remaining percentage of votes that haven't gone towards other seats.
>>3063
We don't call them gay retards already?
Again, why not have a proportional representation voting system? For the duration of the voting process (we were talking about making it the entirety of Sunday), all Anons can vote three times for any party or parties they want. Each seat is worth a specific percentage of the total votes (currently 4.35% from 23 seats). At the end of the voting period, all of the votes are tallied and the seats are handed out according to the percentage of votes they received, so for every 4.35% of the total votes a party got, they get a seat. Any remaining seats are given to the parties with the largest remaining percentage of votes that haven't gone towards other seats.
>>3063
We don't call them gay retards already?
File (): 17FD428F5A07F43693EE5690DFB9F39C-150382.jpg (146.9 KB, 500x500, equestria.jpg)
File (): 484BD6CD64A742EEF1195CFF82DBE351-1453659.png (1.4 MB, 1280x800, Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 2.53.24 PM.png)
File (): 17153E72FF3776AE4F069C3400917D48-1687321.png (1.6 MB, 1280x800, Screen Shot 2018-02-12 at 3.17.23 PM.png)
>>3018
>A map of Equestria to make representative areas with
Easy answer
why not use the map for the Equestria at war mod for HOI4
FEATURES
Boundaries are already drawn so we definitively know where certain boundaries are
population is included if you look at the region details. For instance in pic related you can see there are 10 recruitable ponies living in the Everfree forest, plus one unemployable zigger.
This allows for accurate proportions of populations as someone already thoughtfully inquired how the equestrian population would be distributed.
>A map of Equestria to make representative areas with
Easy answer
why not use the map for the Equestria at war mod for HOI4
FEATURES
Boundaries are already drawn so we definitively know where certain boundaries are
population is included if you look at the region details. For instance in pic related you can see there are 10 recruitable ponies living in the Everfree forest, plus one unemployable zigger.
This allows for accurate proportions of populations as someone already thoughtfully inquired how the equestrian population would be distributed.
File (): B934B8B65F6C615989477D446FB88D48-547672.png (534.8 KB, 592x704, 0189A0A0-71DA-495A-B177-D6358B6EDBDB-4654-000005A8B91E5897.png)
I would like to announce the new Honey Nut Cheerios Party. We are dedicated to the health and safety of the people of /mlpol/, along with making sure all of you get a nice, wholesome breakfast every morning.
>>3065
That mod might be the second reason I want HoI4. The first is to correct Hitler's mistakes and defend the Fatherland from the Gommies and Jews.
That mod might be the second reason I want HoI4. The first is to correct Hitler's mistakes and defend the Fatherland from the Gommies and Jews.
>>3069
Wholesome, white Americans who want to look out for your health. Nothing like those damn (((Hebrews)))
Wholesome, white Americans who want to look out for your health. Nothing like those damn (((Hebrews)))
>>3068
I have the mod. It’s quite good (though has a billions ways to become communist and fascism isn’t even fully implemented in most cases). Very heavy in story more than constant conflicts. You do have to jump through a hoop to get the mod working, but nothing tough to figure out.
>>3070
Thought so...
I have the mod. It’s quite good (though has a billions ways to become communist and fascism isn’t even fully implemented in most cases). Very heavy in story more than constant conflicts. You do have to jump through a hoop to get the mod working, but nothing tough to figure out.
>>3070
Thought so...
>>3072
Here's hoping they'll figure out fascism, because the only true Equestria is the pure, Equestrian Equestria. Still, though, might check it out some day.
Here's hoping they'll figure out fascism, because the only true Equestria is the pure, Equestrian Equestria. Still, though, might check it out some day.
File (): A61785F305D69F6B078832DCDC9A8BE2-237817.png (232.2 KB, 1073x818, propaganda 2.png)
>>3076
Not really. The percentage for votes needed to get a seat is reasonably small, and will only get smaller as more seats are added. And, if you can't get a large enough percentage to guarantee a seat, it's likely you'll have a larger percentage of votes than the other parties for one of the leftover seats.
It's better than the current system for small parties, in my opinion. Just look at the NazBol party, they got nuked as soon as they were made and they couldn't recover.
Not really. The percentage for votes needed to get a seat is reasonably small, and will only get smaller as more seats are added. And, if you can't get a large enough percentage to guarantee a seat, it's likely you'll have a larger percentage of votes than the other parties for one of the leftover seats.
It's better than the current system for small parties, in my opinion. Just look at the NazBol party, they got nuked as soon as they were made and they couldn't recover.
>>3079
Seeing how she is going to be teaching some griffons, I’m not to sure.
Just teasing. I definitely would have enjoyed a few glimmer memes to be honest.
Seeing how she is going to be teaching some griffons, I’m not to sure.
Just teasing. I definitely would have enjoyed a few glimmer memes to be honest.
Hopefully i can turn this from civilised parliament into australian parliament tier shitposts
>>3084
/mlk/ is an old /k/ meme from pre GR-15 days after heaps of people started sharing their pone themed paintjobs
/mlk/ is an old /k/ meme from pre GR-15 days after heaps of people started sharing their pone themed paintjobs
File (): 48F003B3A268CA754711D93DEA62C5EA-204079.png (199.3 KB, 500x500, 2C761B0F-B66D-4716-9840-536713F469B7.png)
>>3088
Don't listen to him! All male Gingers are secretly demons and all female gingers are secretly Sucubi
Don't listen to him! All male Gingers are secretly demons and all female gingers are secretly Sucubi
>>3057
>How to format elections
We need to have a map, perhaps what >>3065 has in mind. We could divide the map into a number of districts, each of which has a number of seats.
Then, in a combination of >>3059 and >>3064, we would hold separate elections for each district. Votes within each district would be tallied up and seats distributed accordingly. However, because each vote is counted across the whole map, i.e., one who votes three times in Las Pegasus cannot vote in Canterlot, there must be voting strategy. Thinning oneself out may net more seats but is inherently riskier, while even a small party could achieve major influence in a particular voting district.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections
I believe that the problem solves itself in my proposal. It is very unlikely that all ten (or so) parties would thin themselves out completely across every district.
>How many seats should be in parliament
With my proposal there could definitely be more without Parliament being thrown into chaos every election. We could either have a population-based system, where districts' seats are based on population (either canon or fanon), or we could have a fixed number for each district. We could not have a compromise U.S. Congress-style as it would require an absurd number of districts.
>How people in the parliament vote
This is the trickiest part. Ideally each seat would be controlled by a different anon, or an anon could control only up to 3 seats (because of our voting arrangements), as it could lead to interesting intra-party splits. If the party leadership dictates how every seat votes it's a bit dull. However, I do not see how any sort of direct-representative system could be easily implemented with the above proposal, doubly so as this is an anonymous imageboard and we couldn't have distinct party members without extensive tripcoding.
Speaking of which, how to tripcode?
>How to format elections
We need to have a map, perhaps what >>3065 has in mind. We could divide the map into a number of districts, each of which has a number of seats.
Then, in a combination of >>3059 and >>3064, we would hold separate elections for each district. Votes within each district would be tallied up and seats distributed accordingly. However, because each vote is counted across the whole map, i.e., one who votes three times in Las Pegasus cannot vote in Canterlot, there must be voting strategy. Thinning oneself out may net more seats but is inherently riskier, while even a small party could achieve major influence in a particular voting district.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections
I believe that the problem solves itself in my proposal. It is very unlikely that all ten (or so) parties would thin themselves out completely across every district.
>How many seats should be in parliament
With my proposal there could definitely be more without Parliament being thrown into chaos every election. We could either have a population-based system, where districts' seats are based on population (either canon or fanon), or we could have a fixed number for each district. We could not have a compromise U.S. Congress-style as it would require an absurd number of districts.
>How people in the parliament vote
This is the trickiest part. Ideally each seat would be controlled by a different anon, or an anon could control only up to 3 seats (because of our voting arrangements), as it could lead to interesting intra-party splits. If the party leadership dictates how every seat votes it's a bit dull. However, I do not see how any sort of direct-representative system could be easily implemented with the above proposal, doubly so as this is an anonymous imageboard and we couldn't have distinct party members without extensive tripcoding.
Speaking of which, how to tripcode?
>>3092
>Speaking of which, how to tripcode?
After your name place ##, followed by a pass phrase.
newfaggot.
>Speaking of which, how to tripcode?
After your name place ##, followed by a pass phrase.
newfaggot.
>>3059
>This should probably be done on a seat by seat basis
Not sure how that'd work out anon. Having everyone vote for a seat every time would look very similar in the end no? We have no way of dividing the board into voting regions even if we make a map.
>>3092
>Then, in a combination of >>3059 and >>3064
Sorta contradictory no? Unless your proposing a bicameral system in which case how would we determine how the upper house and lower house vote in the process?
>>3064
>Again, why not have a proportional representation voting system?
Sorta what I was going for last time but with negative voting and a end amount to allow anons to have something tanable to reach since I wasn't sure how popular it'd get. I'm sorta against a polling system since it makes things slower I like voting in thread better. But overall guess I'll state my opinion on the matter.
>>3057
>How to format elections
Voting in thread proportional rep unicameral. 3 votes per anon.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
I'd say if we're going with a percentage system then unlimmited amounts of parties should be able to enter as long as they have over 8% of the vote.
>How many seats should be in parliament
Its obvious that this is getting more popular so I'd say add 4 more and stay at 27.
>How people in the parliament vote.
I'd like more anons to get involved in the party system but I like having strong centralized parties as well. Personally I'm in favor of keeping the centralized party leader system with MPs able to vote in place of the party leader as long as the MP does what the party leader wants.
>This should probably be done on a seat by seat basis
Not sure how that'd work out anon. Having everyone vote for a seat every time would look very similar in the end no? We have no way of dividing the board into voting regions even if we make a map.
>>3092
>Then, in a combination of >>3059 and >>3064
Sorta contradictory no? Unless your proposing a bicameral system in which case how would we determine how the upper house and lower house vote in the process?
>>3064
>Again, why not have a proportional representation voting system?
Sorta what I was going for last time but with negative voting and a end amount to allow anons to have something tanable to reach since I wasn't sure how popular it'd get. I'm sorta against a polling system since it makes things slower I like voting in thread better. But overall guess I'll state my opinion on the matter.
>>3057
>How to format elections
Voting in thread proportional rep unicameral. 3 votes per anon.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
I'd say if we're going with a percentage system then unlimmited amounts of parties should be able to enter as long as they have over 8% of the vote.
>How many seats should be in parliament
Its obvious that this is getting more popular so I'd say add 4 more and stay at 27.
>How people in the parliament vote.
I'd like more anons to get involved in the party system but I like having strong centralized parties as well. Personally I'm in favor of keeping the centralized party leader system with MPs able to vote in place of the party leader as long as the MP does what the party leader wants.
Well.. I might or might not have map prepared for our world conquer, seeing as we can achieve same thing by politics I can share it with you for a small sum of money
Geography is kinda fucked in some places, but it can be repaired
Geography is kinda fucked in some places, but it can be repaired
I was thinking earlier that each voter could select from a random number generator or something which province they belonged to, then what party they want to vote for. The province represent resets each election. This entails two election angles one could go by, win the most geographic locations or win the most votes. Whichever party succeeds in either way can vie for the majority through sheer numbers or coalitions. Something like that. Perhaps there should be a limit to coalitions or an indicator for a majority. There's much to work out, and I rather that our democracy be dysfunctional and fun than practical. The former is what makes politics worth it to some degree.
I also think that the map should not only represent voting, but settlements and landmarks. A society may be built under our rule that could turn in any manner of direction. That direction which derives from our conflict.
I also think that the map should not only represent voting, but settlements and landmarks. A society may be built under our rule that could turn in any manner of direction. That direction which derives from our conflict.
We merely wish to improve the health of the citizenry, and make sure they get a good breakfast every morning. Therefore, we wish to coalition with every party that has these similar goals!
Confederacy reporting in. Sorry that I’m late. Any business to go over today?
File (): 028559987563E95355B454ED8BC2F830-32553.jpg (31.8 KB, 236x267, 8A62A341-22CA-4371-9756-7A15887AC166.jpeg)
File (): 672F42EB33C916968AFF6C254DDC6444-905177.jpg (884.0 KB, 1129x1600, shitty holiday.jpg)
File (): 864F8A41159F4840B8ED5807CEDD3627-1594060.jpg (1.5 MB, 1240x1754, 1511597985623.jpg)
>>3099
>I blame the Valentines Day.
I for one have taken my plushy on a date but just got back from it.
The major agenda for the week is election reform still. If you can think up anything that'd be helpful. That or just state where your party lies on it.
At this point I'd say the April First Party's opinions on it are as follows.
>No districts
Keeping /mlpol/ a centralized unitary state with a single lower house that is efficient and effective is what all members of the community want. Adding districts will just make it more confusing and a general headache and overall less fun.
>Make it easier and more clear
The problem with our last system is it was hard even for me once the thread got rolling to keep updating it all. Part of the fun in real elections is seeing the results come in but when its not clear it becomes impossible to have fun with that.
>Better vetting for small parties
Having a system where we can let and unlimited number of parties enter would be the best case scenario since everyone loves entering parties and it seemed to be one of the funnest parts of the election. I'd say the day before the official election should be the day for the parties to organize and or new parties to be created. But there should be a requirement for parties to enter such as multiple anons saying they'd be interested either in joining or voting for it.
>Add more seats
Our current congress is fairly small and should at least have a few more seats. I had no clue it would be as popular as it was so we should add more seats.
>Keep it fun!
Continue to keep it formatted as an in thread vote that is much more formalized based on one ID a certain number of votes. Keeping it like this rather then a strawpoll or some other polling site will allow more interaction and more discussion. It'll also be overall a lot more fun!
>I blame the Valentines Day.
I for one have taken my plushy on a date but just got back from it.
The major agenda for the week is election reform still. If you can think up anything that'd be helpful. That or just state where your party lies on it.
At this point I'd say the April First Party's opinions on it are as follows.
>No districts
Keeping /mlpol/ a centralized unitary state with a single lower house that is efficient and effective is what all members of the community want. Adding districts will just make it more confusing and a general headache and overall less fun.
>Make it easier and more clear
The problem with our last system is it was hard even for me once the thread got rolling to keep updating it all. Part of the fun in real elections is seeing the results come in but when its not clear it becomes impossible to have fun with that.
>Better vetting for small parties
Having a system where we can let and unlimited number of parties enter would be the best case scenario since everyone loves entering parties and it seemed to be one of the funnest parts of the election. I'd say the day before the official election should be the day for the parties to organize and or new parties to be created. But there should be a requirement for parties to enter such as multiple anons saying they'd be interested either in joining or voting for it.
>Add more seats
Our current congress is fairly small and should at least have a few more seats. I had no clue it would be as popular as it was so we should add more seats.
>Keep it fun!
Continue to keep it formatted as an in thread vote that is much more formalized based on one ID a certain number of votes. Keeping it like this rather then a strawpoll or some other polling site will allow more interaction and more discussion. It'll also be overall a lot more fun!
I was just wondering something. How far will we take this parliament idea? Will we eventually use it to better organize things like /pol/leagues and other events? What are your thoughts? Should we try and take it further, or stick to more of a role play thing?
>>3102
>no districts
>unitary state
Muh states rights!
>>3102
>no districts
>unitary state
Muh states rights!
>>3103
>Muh states rights!
/mlpol/ is one community no matter how much you try and divide us we will stand together!
>Muh states rights!
/mlpol/ is one community no matter how much you try and divide us we will stand together!
File (): 2E4B82B092BED47A47479FBE91114EB6-179147.jpg (174.9 KB, 531x536, 671013F3-7922-4D67-8265-5D479CE20C75.jpeg)
>>3104
Are you saying I’m dividing our board with an idea? The idea that a state may separate from the group instead of dragging on endless debate and nagging causing more division and strife internally. A state may always be won back by force and split people of one state is harder.
But that’s just my outlook on things. Oh, I don’t very well appreciate being likened unto the enemy of the board’s existence though good sir. As much as we may disagree, we still fight for the same side here.
Are you saying I’m dividing our board with an idea? The idea that a state may separate from the group instead of dragging on endless debate and nagging causing more division and strife internally. A state may always be won back by force and split people of one state is harder.
But that’s just my outlook on things. Oh, I don’t very well appreciate being likened unto the enemy of the board’s existence though good sir. As much as we may disagree, we still fight for the same side here.
Now it hit me that a states rights doesn't make fucking sense in a non-federal government.
>>3107
I always ignored your party somewhat, so this is new. Your party is starting to sound more secessionist or at least federal.
>>3102
I disagree that we shouldn't have districts. The unitary state is droll and in real life leaves much to be desired. I hold my stance that we should have a change in system (likewise majority holdings or limited coalitions), so that there is conflict; and maintain that there should be a map.
Perhaps some regions can attempt to gain more autonomy, leading the States Rights Party to have a much more unique position besides being a bland pseudo confederate party; but overall the provinces can remain chiefly for aesthetic reasons.
I always ignored your party somewhat, so this is new. Your party is starting to sound more secessionist or at least federal.
>>3102
I disagree that we shouldn't have districts. The unitary state is droll and in real life leaves much to be desired. I hold my stance that we should have a change in system (likewise majority holdings or limited coalitions), so that there is conflict; and maintain that there should be a map.
Perhaps some regions can attempt to gain more autonomy, leading the States Rights Party to have a much more unique position besides being a bland pseudo confederate party; but overall the provinces can remain chiefly for aesthetic reasons.
File (): E6C233B0EF7C5124CA2BE34CE5A92B80-38604.jpg (37.7 KB, 601x508, 01F090FB-7422-44AA-8BD1-8C7ED6B097D9.jpeg)
>>3108
>I always ignored your party
Thanks anon. I will try to be more interesting next time.
>bland pseudo confederate party
I really enjoy that sweet sweet constructive criticism. I’m not dead inside at all.
I jest.
>I always ignored your party
Thanks anon. I will try to be more interesting next time.
>bland pseudo confederate party
I really enjoy that sweet sweet constructive criticism. I’m not dead inside at all.
I jest.
File (): 7FFF6DCA324D279B61FC6AE697AA8658-738592.jpg (721.3 KB, 1000x1000, 632965.jpeg)
>>3110
Nah. Your right. Several other anons tried to vote me out, but I’m somehow still here. I’m just trying to learn how to do this sort of thing. I just went with the first political group that came to mind after both traditionalist and ancap were taken.
Nah. Your right. Several other anons tried to vote me out, but I’m somehow still here. I’m just trying to learn how to do this sort of thing. I just went with the first political group that came to mind after both traditionalist and ancap were taken.
File (): DBD4C5BE240918E235916095F832A5C1-1600896.png (1.5 MB, 2222x2222, 1493582670548.png)
>>3108
>The unitary state is droll and in real life leaves much to be desired.
I hear a lot of jargon but no real arguments.
A federalized system would make scene if say we were a large board with a lot of generals coalesced into separate communities. But the edits of pol/equestria under rule 9 ban generals and I will not tolerate us destroying what we stand for. A federalized system doesn't even make scene, the provincial lines would be arbitrary and would not represent other communities or interests and thus if everything is properly and normally distrusted we will only have marginal difference in voting patterns.
So it doesn't make sense and is coming near violating the principles /mlpol/ stands for!
>The unitary state is droll and in real life leaves much to be desired.
I hear a lot of jargon but no real arguments.
A federalized system would make scene if say we were a large board with a lot of generals coalesced into separate communities. But the edits of pol/equestria under rule 9 ban generals and I will not tolerate us destroying what we stand for. A federalized system doesn't even make scene, the provincial lines would be arbitrary and would not represent other communities or interests and thus if everything is properly and normally distrusted we will only have marginal difference in voting patterns.
So it doesn't make sense and is coming near violating the principles /mlpol/ stands for!
>>3109
My argument is that a unitary system doesn't seed conflict between the parties, so it becomes a "yes man" parliament where none of the parties differ on anything besides superficial leanings. This is what I mean by left to be desired. The Tories for example compromise constantly and don't represent anything besides vague English conservatism. And, you are not much different from them in that you preach "common values" while just appealing to the majority. I admit, my post wasn't really detailed. It's a bit hard to put my thoughts into a theoretical game structure, but I'll sum up that I want a more competitive aspect. Funny though that you say that there isn't already room for division when we have broken rule 9 for the Anonfilly general & the Syria general, have conflicting ideological parties, and there are smaller niches that are like generals such as Esoteric Pinkism and Eponism. Now I'm not suggesting a federal state, my suggestions still fit within the unitary mold, however definition doesn't matter anyways; and different interpretations of what the parliament should be can lead to fun or change.
It must be noted that one of the most pressing debates here so far has been about game rules. Which speaks for itself where my concern lies.
My argument is that a unitary system doesn't seed conflict between the parties, so it becomes a "yes man" parliament where none of the parties differ on anything besides superficial leanings. This is what I mean by left to be desired. The Tories for example compromise constantly and don't represent anything besides vague English conservatism. And, you are not much different from them in that you preach "common values" while just appealing to the majority. I admit, my post wasn't really detailed. It's a bit hard to put my thoughts into a theoretical game structure, but I'll sum up that I want a more competitive aspect. Funny though that you say that there isn't already room for division when we have broken rule 9 for the Anonfilly general & the Syria general, have conflicting ideological parties, and there are smaller niches that are like generals such as Esoteric Pinkism and Eponism. Now I'm not suggesting a federal state, my suggestions still fit within the unitary mold, however definition doesn't matter anyways; and different interpretations of what the parliament should be can lead to fun or change.
It must be noted that one of the most pressing debates here so far has been about game rules. Which speaks for itself where my concern lies.
>>3116
Well, maybe it does. Like to give up your Christianity for true Pagan roots? I could use an apprentice.
Well, maybe it does. Like to give up your Christianity for true Pagan roots? I could use an apprentice.
File (): 652AFB47657F0F0417088DE1DBE70255-33612.jpg (32.8 KB, 800x444, 15231CA0-7B17-47E6-8D38-320A8F1B9A59.jpeg)
>>3117
So, what are your thoughts on this parliament? Should it stay a game or be involved in organizing things eventually, like /pol/leagues or something along those lines?
So, what are your thoughts on this parliament? Should it stay a game or be involved in organizing things eventually, like /pol/leagues or something along those lines?
>>3119
Stay a game unless Plus gets in it I guess. Even then, I prefer how do things now with the /pol/leagues.
Stay a game unless Plus gets in it I guess. Even then, I prefer how do things now with the /pol/leagues.
>>3119
I feel like it's a good exercise in coordinating various competing and sometimes opposed white interests.
I feel like it's a good exercise in coordinating various competing and sometimes opposed white interests.
>>3122
Don't count yourself out SRP. The PFP proved to be kike loving traitors, making your the most libertarian party still loyal.
Um, still deserve reeducation camps. It's not like I actually like you or anything. Baka!
Don't count yourself out SRP. The PFP proved to be kike loving traitors, making your the most libertarian party still loyal.
Um, still deserve reeducation camps. It's not like I actually like you or anything. Baka!
>>3123
We always remain loyal... except when it’s time to secede. Then it’s pretty much the opposite of that.
We always remain loyal... except when it’s time to secede. Then it’s pretty much the opposite of that.
>>3102
If I had anything else to add to your own post, I say so. Really, you've said everything I'd say on the matter.
>>3111
How about a National Capitalist party? While such a party might agree with the April First Party and SDWHP on some issues, and the PFP on other issues, we don't really have a party dedicated towards the type of political issues our founding fathers believed in: free market capitalism with sensible regulations to protect consumers, imposed by a strong central government that strives to protect the flow of commerce throughout the nation from outside influence without directly trying to control everything like some despotic tyrant.
Alternatively, you could also create a Minarchist party since the PFP seems to have been kiked out of existence.
If I had anything else to add to your own post, I say so. Really, you've said everything I'd say on the matter.
>>3111
How about a National Capitalist party? While such a party might agree with the April First Party and SDWHP on some issues, and the PFP on other issues, we don't really have a party dedicated towards the type of political issues our founding fathers believed in: free market capitalism with sensible regulations to protect consumers, imposed by a strong central government that strives to protect the flow of commerce throughout the nation from outside influence without directly trying to control everything like some despotic tyrant.
Alternatively, you could also create a Minarchist party since the PFP seems to have been kiked out of existence.
I don't really understand what's going on, but this thread is fun to watch. Keep it coming.
>>3125
If it replaces SRP, yes. But, otherwise it's the same flavour of most parties here. This is why I made the Nazbol for Epona's sake!
If it replaces SRP, yes. But, otherwise it's the same flavour of most parties here. This is why I made the Nazbol for Epona's sake!
>>3125
>founding fathers
Which ones? Hamilton certainly cucked for (((bankers))) harder than pfp. Jefferson, aside from his sexual proclivities was almost volkisch.
I'm not opposed to people making more parties, but there's a reason I stand by reeducation camps for libertarians, far too susceptible to kikery.
>founding fathers
Which ones? Hamilton certainly cucked for (((bankers))) harder than pfp. Jefferson, aside from his sexual proclivities was almost volkisch.
I'm not opposed to people making more parties, but there's a reason I stand by reeducation camps for libertarians, far too susceptible to kikery.
>>3129
>Hamilton not volkish
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader. ….
To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.” (Hamilton 1851: 775–776).
Also, Jefferson fucking negros was slander that still persists to this day.
>>3130
Someone has to step on toes, (((friend))).
>Hamilton not volkish
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader. ….
To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.” (Hamilton 1851: 775–776).
Also, Jefferson fucking negros was slander that still persists to this day.
>>3130
Someone has to step on toes, (((friend))).
File (): 8407BB3E5A25DC212735A39114BFFFBE-165419.png (161.5 KB, 1280x817, 134561346.png)
>>3119
>Should it stay a game or be involved in organizing things eventually, like /pol/leagues or something along those lines?
I have no idea what you'd really get involved with in the /pol/eague tbqh. The roster maybe but I think even that'd be hard to mess with in a similar way to how this is all formatted.
>Should it stay a game or be involved in organizing things eventually, like /pol/leagues or something along those lines?
I have no idea what you'd really get involved with in the /pol/eague tbqh. The roster maybe but I think even that'd be hard to mess with in a similar way to how this is all formatted.
>>3131
Pretty words, but actions speak louder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
Pretty words, but actions speak louder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
>>3129
Hamilton deserved to be burned at the stake, yeah. Basically any founding father that didn't later become a Federalist once the Revolutionary War was over. The Federalists were nothing but cucks to bankers and the British crown. And look where that got us later in 1812.
>>3127
Check'd. We've formed our own /mlpol/ parliment and various different parties to go along with it. Cult of Epona is good for people who care mostly about ponies or paganism. SDWHP will gas the Jews. April First is basically the /mlpol/ traditionalist party. SRP is the most non-cucked libertarian party right now, and is good if you're into the Confederacy. PFP is cucked to Jews, but is otherwise the local anarchist party. The National Bolsheviks are pretty much dead, but if you want to be a Nazi/Commie hybrid, go ahead. I think there's a cereal-based party somewhere. And that's all the parties worth talking about! Yup! No more! Definately it!
We don't talk about (((their))) party.
Hamilton deserved to be burned at the stake, yeah. Basically any founding father that didn't later become a Federalist once the Revolutionary War was over. The Federalists were nothing but cucks to bankers and the British crown. And look where that got us later in 1812.
>>3127
Check'd. We've formed our own /mlpol/ parliment and various different parties to go along with it. Cult of Epona is good for people who care mostly about ponies or paganism. SDWHP will gas the Jews. April First is basically the /mlpol/ traditionalist party. SRP is the most non-cucked libertarian party right now, and is good if you're into the Confederacy. PFP is cucked to Jews, but is otherwise the local anarchist party. The National Bolsheviks are pretty much dead, but if you want to be a Nazi/Commie hybrid, go ahead. I think there's a cereal-based party somewhere. And that's all the parties worth talking about! Yup! No more! Definately it!
We don't talk about (((their))) party.
>>3131
The issue is that Hamilton was one of the first proponents of a privatized national bank: one of the least volkish things imaginable. Take that away and he's alright, but his obsession with the Federal Reserve and making as much national debt as possible is why we don't think of him as being volkish.
The issue is that Hamilton was one of the first proponents of a privatized national bank: one of the least volkish things imaginable. Take that away and he's alright, but his obsession with the Federal Reserve and making as much national debt as possible is why we don't think of him as being volkish.
>>3134
/mlk/ and spoon also exist anon...
But you should support SDWHP because we're the most dedicated to bettering the world. Through pest control.
/mlk/ and spoon also exist anon...
But you should support SDWHP because we're the most dedicated to bettering the world. Through pest control.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-300] [301-400] [401-500] [501-541] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
541 replies | 175 files | 63 UUIDs | Page 1