Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Aug 16, 2015 4:15:11 GMT -6
Well this has been a long-standing bogus point from the RUMP whenever the discussion popped up, but with the current text this is (at last) indeed true, if every party must submit a list of at least three members.
To fix it, a provision for "independent" members could be added to suit one member parties, who don't need to submit a party list but just name their "leader" who will hold all of their seats, up to the maximum number of seats a single MC can hold; any additional seat remains vacant. They would however be banned from adding additional MCs, as by running as independents they are de facto explicitly registering as one member parties.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 16, 2015 6:44:48 GMT -6
So there would be fewer than 200 seats anytime this happened?
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Aug 16, 2015 7:33:37 GMT -6
Not all of them would be filled. This is happening right now with Nicholas Hayes who hasn't formally assigned himself to his Cosa seats; thus while having 200 seats, only 194 (if I remember correctly) are actually occupied by someone.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 16, 2015 8:03:08 GMT -6
This bill explicitly requires at least three people in a party, and require each of them to get seats, CCX. Luc, I also don't think it's a "bogus point" when literally every bill ever proposed on this topic has banned or effectively banned single-person parties, including the very one under discussion. An exemption from the draconian strictures for single-person parties is at least a step in the right direction (or at least, fewer steps in the wrong direction) but it's really hard for me to see what good could come from banning the TSP from the Cosa.
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Aug 16, 2015 9:10:50 GMT -6
Just to add something to the discussion. Back in the day when we proposed to amend the seat numbers of the Cosâ, one of the main arguments against it was how unfair it would be to citizens. "Why, such a small number arraignment would prevent our people from participating! What if they didn't want to join parties? What if they want to run as an independent and be on their own ? You can't have those with only 20-seats!" And now we're planning on passing an bill that favours political parties? What happened to the citizens?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 16, 2015 11:32:47 GMT -6
I included the 3-person rule so that a large couldn't get away with naming only one person, and refusing to reveal the rest of the people whom they intend to gives seats. I understand this is problematic...any have any ideas? I like Luc's.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 16, 2015 12:17:36 GMT -6
B.2.3 The ballot must also include, for each party contesting the election, a list of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats. This list must be submitted to the Secretary of State at least 3 days prior to the election.
B.2.3.1.3 If the list did not include at least 3 citizens, no citizens not named on the list may be awarded seats by that party, even if some seats are forfeited.
I'm not sure of how much use editing will be if the coalition proposes something else, but I'll do it anyway.
The new edit allows less than 3 people to be named on the list. Independent and small parties would almost never be in danger of forfeiting seats, but it would encourage larger parties to name at least 3 people. This doesn't hurt small parties at all, because right now they are still limited by the maximum legal number of seats that can be held.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Aug 16, 2015 15:00:19 GMT -6
This bill explicitly requires at least three people in a party, and require each of them to get seats, CCX. Luc, I also don't think it's a "bogus point" when literally every bill ever proposed on this topic has banned or effectively banned single-person parties, including the very one under discussion. An exemption from the draconian strictures for single-person parties is at least a step in the right direction (or at least, fewer steps in the wrong direction) but it's really hard for me to see what good could come from banning the TSP from the Cosa. My bad - hopefully easily remedied though!
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 27, 2015 19:20:05 GMT -6
Now featuring new coalition-approved language!
|
|
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 Aug 27, 2015 20:05:41 GMT -6
Hmm. More flexible than the original, to be sure, but I still don't see how it could be organic.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 10, 2015 15:02:51 GMT -6
I added an amendment to make this Organic. The Second Covenant should make sure that such a power is not abused.
|
|
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 Sept 12, 2015 6:26:36 GMT -6
I still oppose imposing mandatory candidate lists on the parties.
Aside from that, do you think there's a risk that your timeline for seat assignment will not be feasible? The party leader sends seat assignments to the SoS within 5 days after the election has concluded, but will the party know for sure how many seats it has by then? That will be more likely if the Automatic Voting Validation Amendment is approved, but even so there's no guarantee that that the Electoral Commission will actually approve a voting system in advance (after all, we still don't have a Túischac'h or Civil Service Commission).
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 20, 2015 10:52:24 GMT -6
I changed it to 10 days. Will that help?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 22, 2015 17:55:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 22, 2015 18:14:47 GMT -6
Well, the larger principle is that we don't think parties should be forced to do that sort of thing, just because some parties prefer it that way. But that relates to the specific idea that we have occasionally given one or two seats to people. This is for a variety of reasons. The flexibility is important. There are a variety of examples from across the political spectrum to support this.
EXAMPLE: We recently gave two seats to Travec Dun when he joined our party a few weeks after immigration. This sort of thing has often been smeared as "bribery," but frankly I think it's really important that we let new citizens get active in national politics, and we want to give them the opportunity to do so. Talossa should be fun! It's less fun to welcome someone into the country and tell them to wait four or five months.
EXAMPLE: When the LibCon got started, the ZRT gave some of their seats to the new party members, even after those members had left the party. It was a very nice way of helping the new party get started, since of course it wouldn't have been very much fun for them to sit and wait four or five months before they could have a voice in the legislature. I think this benefited the LibCon, of course, but also the ZRT and the rest of us: Talossa is a better place without losing any of those new Libbers to apathy or boredom.
EXAMPLE: After Reunision, the CRO gave seats to several of the new citizens from the Republic. It was a token gesture of inclusion meant to grant them a place in their new legislature... basically the same as the RUMP has done with new citizens on occasion (well, basically twice in the past few years, actually). And again, I think it was a great thing and an excellent gesture on both sides.
These are some of the situations where it's been necessary and good to give seats to people who weren't on mandatory party lists. I know that some of the people now want to turn around and close that door, but I won't.
All that said, I'd definitely be eager in a compromise to make this a win-win. What principles or reasoning are at work here, on your side? The whereases of this bill don't actually say any reason why the proposed change is good or desirable. What do you want to do or protect or support?
|
|