Come and get yer Nazis!

[BlackBart]

Wrong. When you join a political party officially you constitute the membership which grants that party the minimum number of supporters it needs to run for election. If they gain any seats in Government, it's because you joining their membership gave them the ability to do so. Your actions have affected my life. Don't want your support to be public? Don't join a political party.

You're wrong. The system you've just described is democracy. You're equally entitled to join an opposing party if you don't want my actions affecting your life. This is now going round in a circle.

Edited for markup

[Trolldor]

That's not democracy, that's representative democracy. True democracy would be you representing your own ideals, arguing directly yourself and facing the opposition head on. Instead, you're hiding behind a pathetic veil of invisibility because you refuse to accept the responsibility and burden of defending your own inane political beliefs. If you aren't prepared to defend yourself, then don't support the party. If you aren't willing to address the issues publically, get the fuck out of the sphere.

[Pappa]

I know it does, and I think that's daft. If your actions are going to affect someone else's private life, why should that be kept private?

How does joining a political party affect someone else's private life?

[Trolldor]

I know it does, and I think that's daft. If your actions are going to affect someone else's private life, why should that be kept private?

How does joining a political party affect someone else's private life?

In order for a political party to run for office it has to have a minimum number of registered supporters. Voting is your own business, but by becoming a member of a party you are granting them the ability to run for office. You are actively promoting their policies and should any of their policies come in to effect through Parliament it was your support that enabled them to do so.

[Pappa]

I know it does, and I think that's daft. If your actions are going to affect someone else's private life, why should that be kept private?

How does joining a political party affect someone else's private life?

In order for a political party to run for office it has to have a minimum number of registered supporters. Voting is your own business, but by becoming a member of a party you are granting them the ability to run for office. You are actively promoting their policies and should any of their policies come in to effect through Parliament it was your support that enabled them to do so.

So. Why should that give the public a right to know who you are?

[Trolldor]

I know it does, and I think that's daft. If your actions are going to affect someone else's private life, why should that be kept private?

How does joining a political party affect someone else's private life?

In order for a political party to run for office it has to have a minimum number of registered supporters. Voting is your own business, but by becoming a member of a party you are granting them the ability to run for office. You are actively promoting their policies and should any of their policies come in to effect through Parliament it was your support that enabled them to do so.

So. Why should that give the public a right to know who you are?

Because if you're going to pledge your support to a political party in a way which gives them influence over public policy, you've entered the public realm.

[Pappa]

I know it does, and I think that's daft. If your actions are going to affect someone else's private life, why should that be kept private?

How does joining a political party affect someone else's private life?

In order for a political party to run for office it has to have a minimum number of registered supporters. Voting is your own business, but by becoming a member of a party you are granting them the ability to run for office. You are actively promoting their policies and should any of their policies come in to effect through Parliament it was your support that enabled them to do so.

So. Why should that give the public a right to know who you are?

Because if you're going to pledge your support to a political party in a way which gives them influence over public policy, you've entered the public realm.

Getting lots of votes gives them influence, not merely existing or having members. And you haven't entered the public realm at all, you've essentially just joined a club.

[Trolldor]

They aren't eligible to recieve votes without a membership base. Voting is the by-product.

[Pappa]

They aren't eligible to recieve votes without a membership base. Voting is the by-product.

But why should that mean the members must give away their personal details. If all political parties that are popular enough to have members are governed by the same rules then there's no worthwhile reason for publishing the names of their members.

[Trolldor]

They aren't eligible to recieve votes without a membership base. Voting is the by-product.

But why should that mean the members must give away their personal details. If all political parties that are popular enough to have members are governed by the same rules then there's no worthwhile reason for publishing the names of their members.

I never said only one party, I think no matter the party, irrespective of its policies or belief, should have all registered members publically available. Addresses and phone numbers? I don't see how they're necessary, but their names should be publically available.

[Pappa]

They aren't eligible to recieve votes without a membership base. Voting is the by-product.

But why should that mean the members must give away their personal details. If all political parties that are popular enough to have members are governed by the same rules then there's no worthwhile reason for publishing the names of their members.

I never said only one party, I think no matter the party, irrespective of its policies or belief, should have all registered members publically available. Addresses and phone numbers? I don't see how they're necessary, but their names should be publically available.

But why? I don't see how there's a need at all.

[Trolldor]

They aren't eligible to recieve votes without a membership base. Voting is the by-product.

But why should that mean the members must give away their personal details. If all political parties that are popular enough to have members are governed by the same rules then there's no worthwhile reason for publishing the names of their members.

I never said only one party, I think no matter the party, irrespective of its policies or belief, should have all registered members publically available. Addresses and phone numbers? I don't see how they're necessary, but their names should be publically available.

But why? I don't see how there's a need at all.

Because there are a lot of people and organsiations who fund political parties that, if known, would cause a great deal of trouble for those parties in question. The only way to do it would be to have all of the registered members along with any recieved 'donations' a matter of public record.
Secondly, people who aren't willing to publically defend their views shouldn't have the ability to allow frontmen to do it for them. The only difference between the members you do know and the members you don't are their positions within the party. They both, however, have viable and tennable positions, and both can determine what shape or direction the party takes.
When a party no longer needs registered supporters to become a viable political party, then I won't see the need for those supporters to be public.

[Pappa]

They aren't eligible to recieve votes without a membership base. Voting is the by-product.

But why should that mean the members must give away their personal details. If all political parties that are popular enough to have members are governed by the same rules then there's no worthwhile reason for publishing the names of their members.

I never said only one party, I think no matter the party, irrespective of its policies or belief, should have all registered members publically available. Addresses and phone numbers? I don't see how they're necessary, but their names should be publically available.

But why? I don't see how there's a need at all.

Because there are a lot of people and organsiations who fund political parties that, if known, would cause a great deal of trouble for those parties in question. The only way to do it would be to have all of the registered members along with any recieved 'donations' a matter of public record.
Secondly, people who aren't willing to publically defend their views shouldn't have the ability to allow frontmen to do it for them. The only difference between the members you do know and the members you don't are their positions within the party. They both, however, have viable and tennable positions, and both can determine what shape or direction the party takes.
When a party no longer needs registered supporters to become a viable political party, then I won't see the need for those supporters to be public.

I don't agree with any of that being valid or necessary. Any significant donations to political parties here must be made public anyway, so the funding isn't an issue. As an example: traditionally all trade unionists in the UK were members of the Labour party, paying small annual membership fees to support the party. Why should they be forced to be named from simply supporting their chosen political party. You might as be insisting ballots shouldn't be secret.