Napoleon, my position here is very simple and based on something perfectly logical, and I'll walk you through it:
We were stuck in a two party system because the parties became too big.
Why did they become too big? Because people valued votes over sticking to any sort of ideology. Thus, they grew more and more bloated and inconsistent ideologically.
What was the proposal to solve that problem for? The caucus system, by design, was meant to encourage more ideological thinking. Caucuses were meant to be designed around individual philosophies or individual issues.
However, that doesn't solve the problem entirely, so Bgwah proposes dissolution. Why? Again, the parties were too big. Why were they too big? Again, because they became super-big-tent parties that were ideologically unrecognizable as anything.
So why would dissolution solve that? Because it would create smaller, more numerous parties.
Why would the goal be smaller, more numerous parties? Because parties had stopped prioritizing anything ideological and became giant vote-banks instead of actual parties.
What is the opposite of creating an ideologically consistent party that doesn't have a super big tent approach? The Liberals.
Therefore, I consider you (and the Communitarians) as being fundamentally opposed to how we solve our past mistakes inherently, by your very structure.
Let me re-order your comments slightly.
We were stuck in a (situation where) people valued votes over sticking to any sort of ideology. (this caused a) two party system because the parties became too big. Why did they become too big? Because (of the above). Thus, they grew more and more bloated and inconsistent ideologically.
What was the proposal to solve that problem for? The caucus system, by design, was meant to encourage more ideological thinking. Caucuses were meant to be designed around individual philosophies or individual issues.
However, that doesn't solve the problem entirely, so Bgwah proposes dissolution. Why? Again, the parties were too big. Why were they too big? Again, because they became super-big-tent parties that were ideologically unrecognizable as anything.
So why would dissolution solve that? Because it would create smaller, more numerous parties.
Why would the goal be smaller, more numerous parties? Because parties had stopped prioritizing anything ideological and became giant vote-banks instead of actual parties.
What is the opposite of creating an ideologically consistent party that doesn't have a super big tent approach? The Liberals.
Therefore, I consider you (and the Communitarians) as being fundamentally opposed to how we solve our past mistakes inherently, by your very structure.
The problem is not a 2 party or 1 party system. The problem is people who come in, without knowing what the hell is going on in Atlasia, and vote as though they are equal to you, me, or napoleon. Each of us pays great attention to this game, and the idea that someone who's only contribution to Atlasia for an entire year is to cast a ballot based on party label makes me ill - yet every time I've come up with a proposal to stop this (and go back though my post history, this was one of my first issues. Read TPTTAA, it was the FIRST thing I dealt with) everyone shoots it down.
