Post

Rhyssuan peoples wrote:

I think a variety of factors explain it: often, the candidacies in question were low-risk, low-effort ones that didn't take much of a stance on anything, emphasizing their "independence" and willingness to compromise when we needed people with bold agendas. While the size of the chamber partially caused the lower vote counts, the candidates need to excite people. When managed correctly, political parties can mobilize and organize voters in a way that independents can't match. Before the re-establishment of the military (arguably a watershed moment for this genelec), our politics were as bland as oatmeal. Parties can excite people and bring political discourse to the fore. Besides, failing all other arguments we've tried an independent-centric legislature. I'd argue it hasn't worked in terms of regional engagement, so I founded NTN to address the problem.

<insert shameless advertisement for NTN here>

The other issue with "independents" is that you have the old independents who always have been so(take me as an example), whether by ideals or by policies. But today with no political parties everyone just masks themselves as "independent" as a good trait, while in reality most of them would just join a political party or have similar policies (if any) with others (the idea of compromise comes to mind). It's kinda just stealing other people's legacy for their own name.

Being independent isn't even about parties too. I can mask Cerdenia (who's been in parties for quite some time), you (who founded one) and Cinema (who founded and joined parties) as independents. Independency is just standing for your own ideals. For example, everyone knows Cerdenia & I are fanatics when it comes to efficiency v. bureaucracy. That's a defining trait of independence to me. That's also why I call a lot of people fake independents because, in the end, they only are by EC procedures.