(02-13-2017, 06:54 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: That's fucking ridiculous, and you know it Tsu.

En Marche towards dictatorship, apparently.

I'm done with your attacks on parties. Go join the NPO if you want to control everybody's opinions and actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, it's ridiculous. That's why I threw it in there to draw attention.

(02-13-2017, 09:32 AM)Farengeto Wrote: I'm honestly not sure what you suggest here short of outright anti-democratic laws. Preventing voters for voting for their chosen candidate?  Contesting election results because of who voted for them? Monitoring legislator's private communications based on affiliations? I'm not trying to be overdramatic here, but I'm not sure what you suggest that doesn't blatantly discriminate against certain voter groups.

As well, parties already can't force anyone to vote for somebody. The only consequences for it are the social ones outlined by the party.

So, we can exert social pressure on people to vote the way the party apparatus wants, but that's not corruption?

I don't understand. I'm being called anti-democratic, yet I'm the one arguing that we DON'T vote stack through our party system. The defenders of this whole situation are hiding behind the fact that they can freely associate — yet "freely associate" means making backroom deals that effect the entire region. That's decidedly, undemocratic.

To Glen's assertion: I'm not attacking political parties, I'm attacking the way that they act. There is, at the end of the day, a difference. I'm not trying to prohibit how anyone associates, but again, I'm asking for a some good faith toward the democratic standards we have in the region.

I honestly can't believe that saying "Please don't privately swap endorsements until such time that you don't control a totality the party apparatuses" is considered "undemocratic" and a march toward authoritarianism. It's good to know where everyone stands on this, though.