The "Party" (not sure about the political correctness here since it’s a "just" a List) established itself mainly as an anti-corruption movement, but I can’t imagine that all their members share the same opinion on certain topics (for example in the discussion around the independency of Kosovo, or "simpler" stuff like economics, foreign affairs,…), which they will have to deal with sooner or later.

Am I wrong for thinking that their party/list will shatter into many smaller parties until there is nothing left of it?

Theoretically it’s not a bad thing, but there’s this risk that old SNS voters go back to SNS since they may feel like the students party is too instable and paralyzed in their decision making since their opinions vary too much.

So i revently came and cross the terms liberal and conservative.

I am astonished how broadly these labels are mentioned in context of role of government, social or cultural rules and economic preferences.

However an individual can have its own preferences like someone can be activist but still values tradition

In video games like rimworld individual lables and opinions makes much sense but even so two opposite spectrums never emerge

Everywhere in broadcase and mass communication i can see the liberal and conservative division but I never intuitively understand them

Can anyone explain is there any benefit of such classification or is it just a political tool.

​

Is there any examples or model laws or regulations of what systemization of evidence based policymaking looks like in top level governance of states and organizations ?

My friend Ran Heilbrunn wrote this piece for Café Américain, Part 1 of a four-part series on contemporary Israel, ahead of the October 27 vote. His main claim should interest this sub: the 2022–2026 Knesset was the first since 1988 to serve its full term, and he argues that a widely contested government had a strong reason to stay together and put off elections, so "a lack of popular support has paradoxically produced electoral stability." He also looks at the broader trend of a democracy's constitutional structures becoming the thing elections are fought over rather than the framework they happen in. The link goes to Café Américain's post on X, which links to the article. If you think it's worth it, reposts or replies there are welcome, and I'd be curious whether people here buy the legitimacy-deficit reading of coalition durability: https://x.com/keithwhitson/status/2114460007144345608

Saying that as a nerd myself