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
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!
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!
491 replies and 163 files omitted.
Don't listen to him! All male Gingers are secretly demons and all female gingers are secretly Sucubi
At least they ain't coons, kikes, or mudslimes.
>>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
, 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.
>>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.
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
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.
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?
SDWHP member here. Seems to be a slow day. I blame the Valentines Day.
>>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 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!
>>3103>Muh states rights!
/mlpol/ is one community no matter how much you try and divide us we will stand together!
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.
I know. I told everyone that I was bad at this.
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.
>>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.
Well, it's just like my opinion, man.
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.
>>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!
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.
You may have pick my number by mistake. That or you just like me that much.
Hard to like someone I barely notice;^)
You took enough energy to notice me today. So that has to count for something.
Well, maybe it does. Like to give up your Christianity for true Pagan roots? I could use an apprentice.
Nope. Thanks for playing.
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?
Stay a game unless Plus gets in it I guess. Even then, I prefer how do things now with the /pol/leagues.
I feel like it's a good exercise in coordinating various competing and sometimes opposed white interests.
Ah, then I won’t feel too bad when I am inevitability defeated in the next election cycle. And I won’t have to feel the burden of shame for failing Stonewall Jackson. May he rest in peace.
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!
We always remain loyal... except when it’s time to secede. Then it’s pretty much the opposite of that.
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.. that's reassuring I guess...
I don't really understand what's going on, but this thread is fun to watch. Keep it coming.
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!
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.
If my glorious (not really but I wish it was) Confederate party falls, then I may. Until then, this party was actually more in line with what the founding fathers first put together.>>3126
Just playing with ya.>>3128
I care about you as well friend.
>>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))).
>>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.
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.
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.
I already voted, but I'm still lurking.
/mlk/ and spoon also exist anon...
But you should support SDWHP because we're the most dedicated to bettering the world. Through pest control.
oh and the former zogbot party, forgot about them. Poor bastards.