EEL Mk2 wrote:I think that without the consent of the party being suppressed, this could potentially be seen as an abuse, unless it is made clear, perhaps in one of those OOC nation guides that some countries have, that the country is governed by an oppressive regime (and if you still join that country, we can imply an implicit consent). However, under circumstances where the party in question consents to being victimised, so to speak, it seems unnecessary for the early election tactic to be used. They can simply exist not vote on legislation (while obviously making their position clear RP-wise) or even not exist except on the forum. (If I recall correctly, I may have done this in the past.) Given this, the early election tactic seems entirely superfluous in the circumstances that you describe.
Anything that prevents a party from gaining power can potentially be seen as an abuse, and many players, especially new ones, dislike oppressive regimes and are thus unlikely to want to RP themselves as being victimized. The early election tactic is inherently nonconsensual, but that in itself is not a bad thing; a lot of rules and game mechanics are nonconsensual as well, this is a political simulation game after all. My argument is that, although the simulationist understanding of these tactics does not always work (RL dictatorships don't generally have elections every few months), that is not in itself an argument against them, considering they are usually used for their effect rather than their description. That being said, I would distinguish between using these tactics for specific temporary goals, and their abusive long-term implementation designed to leave a player in permanent control of a nation.