(02-09-2017, 11:33 PM)Escade Wrote: 1. What are you proposing in terms of parties? Some measure of control or?
2. How does curtailing parties in any way protect democracy?
3. How does curtailing parties stop the old-fashioned politicking that has been going on for quite a while?
4. How do you ensure fairness for all people, especially the majority?

I'm not a member of a party, at least not as of yet.  However, within this discussion and the other two threads that revolve around or somehow turned into a discussion of parties I see critiques:
1. How can a party member be neutral (regarding Farengeto's appointment by DM)?
Which really doesn't make sense based on the fact that our previous appointee Raven was not only not neutral (and prone to high emotions) but had very clear sides\friends\imperalist goals.

2. Parties choosing candidates is a BIG PROBLEM bc we're a meritocracy aren't we? 
Nope, honey, we're not. See: Wolf, et al.

1. I'm not proposing anything except — maybe — asking them not to collude on endorsement trading until we have a situation where that doesn't make it prohibitive for anyone else to win.

2. It protects democracy because if we assume parties fall in line with the party endorsement (through will or force) It currently removed anyone not from one of these two parties a seat at the table. OR — even members of another party.

3. I've personally always found the process of "endorsing" people grotesque. It's also one of the reasons I primarily vote in private because I don't think we should we pushing each other to vote in any number of ways. I do appreciate the ongoing argument that think has been happening forever — just not to/with me. I alternative form of that argument is that it just wasn't happening in this way, but its convenient to mischaracterize it for at the current discussion. 

4. You're going to have to describe "fairness." Because I'd argue giving everyone equal chance to be elected is, in fact, more fair and dolling out endorsements ahead of time.

To your other issues:

1. We (you and I) tried to have a discussion on neutrality, but were shut down. So, I don't know. But, I think this constant return to Raven is silly. Whether or not her have imperialist friends outside of the region, he didn't have a stated alliance to a significant portion of current voters. Attempts to conflate the two are misguided.

2. Again, the Wolf situation is radically different here. And, even if that wasn't meritocracy, are you suggesting we just throw up our hands and say "eff it!" It's always been that way so I'm going to rig the system in my favor?

Now, did that answer your questions?