|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on May 24, 2015 3:28:48 GMT -6
Again: misreporting the electoral alliance between the Libs and the ZRT. Jeez, have our reporters really gotten so lazy as not to check their facts first? Can you elaborate on this? Did I misunderstand something?
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on May 24, 2015 4:59:31 GMT -6
You use the phrase "merger" as though the Libs and the ZRT have ceased to be separate entities. The truth of it is that the electoral alliance operates on the basis of two distinct parties co-operating to advance common goals. My party can still make policy, as can Miestra's, but Free Democrat policy is made by the two in agreement. It's a small thing, but worth getting right so that you have something to report when our constitutionally mandated vote on a merger comes up several months down the line
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 24, 2015 5:17:41 GMT -6
The ZRT and Libs have not ceased to be separate organisations, but they have ceased to be separate parties contesting the election right? In that sense it could be described as a temporary partial merger I guess.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on May 24, 2015 5:24:03 GMT -6
Again, no. It's an electoral alliance: two parties working together, not ceasing to be. Merger doesn't quite capture the policy independence of both parties, whereas an electoral alliance comes closer to our goal of jointly campaigning on the promotion of freedom, privacy, and democracy.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 24, 2015 5:58:10 GMT -6
Why is it anyway, that if these parties are indenpendent in their policy, voters are not offered a choice between these "independent" policies?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on May 24, 2015 6:24:42 GMT -6
Again, no. It's an electoral alliance: two parties working together, not ceasing to be. Merger doesn't quite capture the policy independence of both parties, whereas an electoral alliance comes closer to our goal of jointly campaigning on the promotion of freedom, privacy, and democracy. There is a reason I used the term Merger... There is a law on the books, 32RZ3, the Cosa Vote Correctional program which allows the SoS to correct a vote cast for a party which merged for another. I know the guy who wrote that law back in November 2003. If the LIB and the ZRT merged to form the FREEDEM, that means that any vote cast for the ZRT or for the LIB in this election will be counted as a vote for the Freedem. Such a merger therefore has a clear legal consequence for the election. If you are telling me that the FreeDem is NOT a merger of the LIB and the ZRT, then any votes for either parties will NOT be counted as votes for the FreeDem. What you do after the election and the exact nature of the merger is NOT of concern for the Chancery and has on effect on the election itself from the legal perspective. It can be a loose merger, a complete merger, a federated merger, a temporary merger, but if it's not a merger of ANY sort, then the FreeDem do not own the ZRT or LIB votes.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on May 24, 2015 16:42:17 GMT -6
I don't believe I was talking about the Chancery, but on how you reported it.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 24, 2015 17:04:48 GMT -6
I don't believe I was talking about the Chancery, but on how you reported it. Doesn't what M-P is saying about the Chancery have some bearing on whether the reporting is accurate? If the ZRT and Liberal Congress have decided "to merge their parties and become a single registered party" in the terms of the law, it hardly seems inaccurate to report the arrangement as a merger of the parties.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 24, 2015 18:23:57 GMT -6
It seems more like semantics... you're definitely legally a single party at the moment, but it just might be temporary, right? I understand that there's a complex internal structure within the FDA (four person executive, etc) but it's still just one registered party.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on May 25, 2015 2:27:16 GMT -6
I don't really see why it's so hard for people to understand - it's an alliance. Think SDP/Liberal Alliance in the UK; the alliance might be a registered entity, but the two parties haven't merged.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 25, 2015 3:40:50 GMT -6
I think they understand perfectly well, they're pretending not to to troll you.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on May 25, 2015 5:45:50 GMT -6
I think they understand perfectly well, they're pretending not to to troll you. Well, I am NOT trolling you guys. I am guessing that I am truly not seeing the difference between an election merge (which is what I am referring as a merge) and an election alliance with a single party name. Perhaps the weird non-natively speaking English guy who wrote the "What Party" law didn't use the right term when he used the verb "merge". Perhaps you should take it up with him... Hint: he currently is Secretary of State.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on May 25, 2015 5:47:27 GMT -6
I don't really see why it's so hard for people to understand - it's an alliance. Think SDP/Liberal Alliance in the UK; the alliance might be a registered entity, but the two parties haven't merged. Because under the current law, alliances do not have a legal definition, but merged parties do. If you want, we can change the law so that in the future, alliances have a legal standing, but for now, only merged parties do.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 25, 2015 16:04:43 GMT -6
The legal niceities are one thing, but in reality it is only an alliance.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 25, 2015 19:27:39 GMT -6
Well, actually, I'd say it probably the opposite way, myself. It seems pretty clear that it's a permanent merger in reality, with the legal niceties of the approval vote three months into the term being a foregone conclusion.
|
|