Your thoughts on a 'virtual' party?

[Machjo]

I was mulling the concept of a 'virtual' party recently.

In short, it would be an online website presenting itself as a hypothetical political party which would give honorary membership to candidates in an election who meet the stated objective standards of this hypothetical party (i.e. who would have met the standard for membership had it been a real party).

It would essentially serve as an objective educational website, a little like political compass.

As an example, let's say this virtual party decided to name itself the Party for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and had a site like pudhr.ca or something of the sort, and gave honorary membership to any candidate in an election whose election platform did not conflict with the UDHR in any way and was advancing at least one of its principles, it would be a quick way for voters to learn about their candidates on one convenient website.

Of course other variant 'virtual' parties could exist too, such as the Party for the X, Y, or Z, all based on the some kind of objectively verifyable criterium. Any ideas on this idea?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Sounds good. There are many similar "parties" now. Various interest groups "grade" candidates on their positions and past performance.

What you would need is:

1. A complete and detailed statement of the party's philosophy and positions.

2. An assessment of candidates/proposals carefully relating them to the party's philosophy and positions.

This is critical. Without a clear, direct connexion between your principles and your recommendations, you're just another internet argument site.

It would take years to build credibility. So if you're not in it for the long haul, don't bother.

 

[Blackleaf]

At first I thought you meant a virtual fun party, rather than a virtual political party.

 

[Machjo]

Sounds good. There are many similar "parties" now. Various interest groups "grade" candidates on their positions and past performance.

What you would need is:

1. A complete and detailed statement of the party's philosophy and positions.

2. An assessment of candidates/proposals carefully relating them to the party's philosophy and positions.

This is critical. Without a clear, direct connexion between your principles and your recommendations, you're just another internet argument site.

It would take years to build credibility. So if you're not in it for the long haul, don't bother.

First off, I'd be basing it on the candidate, not the party. If his party opposes the principles of this 'virtual party' but the candidate opposes his party on those specific points, he's in. And if his party is kosher according to the principle, but the candidate opposes it on some point, he's out.

Secondly, it would have to be totally objective.

As an example, let's say it's a pudhr.ca party as proposed above, then regardless of anyone's political or ideological opinions, if the candidate meets the objective standards of the site, then he's in, otherwise not, maybe even with some mechanism to challenge errors and such.

I could also see the problem of grey areas. In those cases, it would probably be best to include the candidate with a simple mention of those grey areas, leaving it up to the voter to decide from there on in.

As for philosophy and positions, we'd probably want it to be fairly narrow to keep things simple. To take the pudhr.ca example, if it's based on conformity to the UDHR, then that's it, nothing more. Likewise if it's based on some other objective criterium.

 

[taxslave]

Who is going to decide the principles of the virtual party?

 

[Machjo]

Who is going to decide the principles of the virtual party?

obviously each virtual party woudl have its own standard, as long as it is objectively followed from there on in. So clearly if one such site chooses the UDHR as the standard, then it would give honorary membership to any candidate in an election whose platform objectively conforms to the principles of the UDHR.

You might have another virtual party site basing itself on only the 'negative' rights of the UDHR, or a combination of the negative rights of the UDHR and government debt reduction. Inthe latter case, it woudl have to analyse a candidate's platform objectively based also on how his platform could contribute to reducing the debt. But again, for the site to gain credibility, it would have to have some kind of checks and balances and give people the ability to challenge the site's conclusions in a fair manner.

You could have other varied sites based on different criteria, but each havng to clearlydefine the criteria and put them online for the public to see.

 

[darkbeaver]

Who is going to decide the principles of the virtual party?

The virtual party manifesto committee.

I'm with blackleaf we should just collect a lot of money and blow on a drunken bash same as the real parties.