There's been talk of reviving the PCF party system, and I as a former leader of one of those during the whole golden age of it when we used to have debates and shit (I used to run the Libertarian HQ, yeah I did for realz), would like to argue against having them.
"O' DISCORIA! Why must you say such a thing Boris!?!"
Well let me present my reasoning:
-There's a huge amount of overlap between several of them. For example the radical and anarchist hq depending on the board activity (e.g if the ancap level is low) would often be the same thing.
-The normally two biggest parties (democrat and republican) were irrelevant to anyone not from the U.S
-Several of them e.g. the Greens barely ever had any action in them.
In short, its a fairly antiquated system that never really made much sense anyway.
And suggest instead 'Fractions', which would actually be based upon fairly homogeneous ideological grouping.
e.g
-The Conservatives
-The Social Liberals
-The Classical Liberals
-The Social Democrats
-The Anarcho-Socialists
-The Libertarians
-The Environmentalists
Or summit like that, obviously these are open to debate.