Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 22, 2015 18:29:51 GMT -6
WHEREAS A voter should know which individuals they are voting for when casting a vote for a certain party, and
WHEREAS This will serve to increase accountability to the voters
After reading the whereases again, I did in fact realize they said very little, so I changed them. There are the principles that make me fond of this idea.
Being honest, I don't relish the idea of new immigrants jumping right into the Cosa mid-term. They should wait until the end of the term like everyone else. There were plenty of things for me to do between March 21st and June 1st, including make a Talossan Periodic Table, get involved in the MRPT congress, read BT , and really just figure out how everything worked. And I didn't get bored and I certainly had fun.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 22, 2015 18:47:20 GMT -6
You didn't, but I think a lot of people have and would and do. I mean, am I wrong? We should at least admit the possible price, if we want to ban this practice, despite all of the exceptions that so many now in power have enjoyed back in their day. There will be some people who join, get sort of involved, and then kind of drop off with activity and don't come back. That number isn't going to be zero, even though we can indeed debate how high it would go.
I actually agree that candidate lists are a very good thing. The RUMP was the first party to ever offer a candidate list, in fact. I don't think it makes us more accountable (not sure I follow the logic there?) but it is good for voters to know who will be working on their behalf. It's not the most important thing -- ideals and goals are more important -- but we have been offering party lists for like a decade now, so you know we're behind the idea.
But a mandatory party list serves rather less of a purpose. It doesn't allow for all of those exceptions I detailed ("fine for me, but not for thee") or the most recent ones. Look at the Talossan Socialist Party, which had no candidate list and which was a dynamic and new party in this last election. They were a surprise and garnered much more support than anyone predicted (beating out the PP!), and then asked which of their supporters might want to serve with them in the Cosa. As it happens, none of those people stepped forward, but if there had been three or four socialists who had just been silently waiting for this new force to show up... would Talossa have really been served by shutting them down?
Stuff like that can and does happen with regular frequency. It's arrogant to think that Reunision, or the launch of the Libs, or the TSP creation are the last we'll see of such unusual events. We need the flexibility to handle them... not iron shackles that hobble us.
Maybe a compromise that requires a published party list, but does not limit assignment in such a draconian fashion to the pre-published names for the whole seven months of a term?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 22, 2015 20:01:30 GMT -6
You didn't, but I think a lot of people have and would and do. I mean, am I wrong? We should at least admit the possible price, if we want to ban this practice, despite all of the exceptions that so many now in power have enjoyed back in their day. There will be some people who join, get sort of involved, and then kind of drop off with activity and don't come back. That number isn't going to be zero, even though we can indeed debate how high it would go. Is a spot in the national legislature really the only way to keep people interested? I don't think I would want someone in the Cosa whose only motivation for staying around is their spot in the Cosa. I would hope to have people more dedicated than that.
That is 1/3 of seats can be apportioned elsewhere. I personally would be OK with 40-50 percent, but at that point I fear losing the support of the coalition.
PS I think accountability would increase, because subpar politicians couldn't hide behind their party's banner unnamed. However its not super important, and of course you are welcome to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 23, 2015 5:11:00 GMT -6
Is a spot in the national legislature really the only way to keep people interested? I don't think I would want someone in the Cosa whose only motivation for staying around is their spot in the Cosa. I would hope to have people more dedicated than that. It's not the only way. But a lot of people come to Talossa because the politics are fun and interesting. It's not wrong to recognize that and enable it, if it makes the country better and more attractive to them. Just look at the numbers. Perhaps 1 in 4 immigrants become substantially active, and perhaps 1 in 8 stay that way for a long period of time (and those might be rather optimistic numbers). We shouldn't reduce those figures even more. [ That is 1/3 of seats can be apportioned elsewhere. I personally would be OK with 40-50 percent, but at that point I fear losing the support of the coalition. [/p]
PS I think accountability would increase, because subpar politicians couldn't hide behind their party's banner unnamed. However its not super important, and of course you are welcome to disagree.
[/quote] You think such a proposal would have majority support? Have you spoken to people to get a sense of their position? For myself, I'm not sure that a lot of people in the ruling Government are open to compromise on it.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 23, 2015 6:35:46 GMT -6
You think such a proposal would have majority support? Have you spoken to people to get a sense of their position? For myself, I'm not sure that a lot of people in the ruling Government are open to compromise on it. Well, then it is a good thing that not every legislator is part of the Gov't.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 23, 2015 8:05:47 GMT -6
That's true, but their leaders all are.
|
|
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 23, 2015 9:44:11 GMT -6
I would much prefer an amendment that would make parties' own policies on seat assignment binding, so parties that believe in mandatory lists would have to assign seats to candidates on their list. I proposed language for such an amendment earlier in the thread. Let the voters decide for themselves what is important to them.
On the other hand, this proposed amendment appears to only affect initial assignment of seats under OrgLaw VIII:3, and not reassignment under VII:9. That preserves a lot of flexibility for parties to make non-list assignments in response to changing circumstances like the examples Sir Alexandreu cites above.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Sept 23, 2015 12:04:01 GMT -6
B.2.3.2 Within 3 days of receiving this report, the Secretary of State shall contact every citizen who was awarded seats, confirming that they still wish to hold those seats. If the citizen no longer wishes to hold the seats, or if the citizen does not respond within seven days of receiving the message, the Secretary of State shall notify the party leader, who may reassign those seats as they see fit, so long as the rest of the eligible citizens on the list occupy at least 2/3 of the seats won, and no person occupies more than the legal number of seats.
Nope, not at all. Not the job of the SoS. No way josé. Back off. Stay away, can't touch this... More seriously, find another way, the SoS is not the "one size fits all" solution. We can't just constantly drop on the SoS every little procedure we dream of. The SoS already does so much, and holds so much in his hands!!! I do not know what the proper procedure should be, but leave the Chancery out of this. I do not think it is the job of the number 1 bureaucrat of the country to sit down with people to consult on their wishes. The SoS deals with Votes, Resignations, Bills, Clarks, things that are absolute. the SoS doesn't poll people, he doesn't ask opinions. He gathers votes. If you want to involve the SoS, do an automatic procedure, such as this way: That way, no need to consult anyone.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 23, 2015 15:38:57 GMT -6
I would much prefer an amendment that would make parties' own policies on seat assignment binding, so parties that believe in mandatory lists would have to assign seats to candidates on their list. I proposed language for such an amendment earlier in the thread. Let the voters decide for themselves what is important to them. On the other hand, this proposed amendment appears to only affect initial assignment of seats under OrgLaw VIII:3, and not reassignment under VII:9. That preserves a lot of flexibility for parties to make non-list assignments in response to changing circumstances like the examples Sir Alexandreu cites above. Aren't parties already bound to their own policies? If they aren't, why would they have policies to begin with?
I do like MPF's idea, but I think it could be simplified down to something like this (bolded parts are different):
Please let me know what you think!
|
|
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 23, 2015 16:06:08 GMT -6
Aren't parties already bound to their own policies? If they aren't, why would they have policies to begin with? I'm dubious. If a party leader violates party policy in making seat assignments, the party might oust him, and it might have political consequences for the party at the next election, but I doubt anyone could make the SoS refuse the seat assignments. The SoS just looks at the OrgLaw, which says parties can assign seats as they see fit. He doesn't study the party's constitution or bylaws or platform. The first seat of a party is automatically assigned to the first eligible name in the party list. The second to the second name and so on. Once the last person receives a seat, repeat the process from the first name until each name on the party list has 6 seats or the party runs of seats. After this point, the party leader may assign remaining seats to any eligible citizen(s) they see fit, so long as no one who was not named on the list is assigned more seats than anyone who was named on the list, and the number of citizens awarded seats who were not named on the list is fewer than the number of citizens who were named on the list. Any person assigned a seat as above may decline to take their seats in which case they will be reallocated using the above procedure. Things keep getting more complicated, and in ways that have little apparent benefit. Imagine two parties that each win 36 seats and have three people on their candidate list. Party A wants to assign 6 seats each to the candidates on the list and 6 seats each to three non-list citizens. Party B wants to assign 10 seats to each of its list candidates and 1 seat each to 6 non-list citizens. So Party A would have 18 seats held by list candidates and 18 held by non-list candidates, while Party B would have 30 seats held by list candidates, and 6 held by non-list candidates. Why is Party A's approach preferable, and so much so that we should outlaw Party B's approach? ETA: I see that this example is off because even Party A would not have fewer non-list than list MCs, but hopefully you get my point.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 23, 2015 18:12:07 GMT -6
Aren't parties already bound to their own policies? If they aren't, why would they have policies to begin with? I'm dubious. If a party leader violates party policy in making seat assignments, the party might oust him, and it might have political consequences for the party at the next election, but I doubt anyone could make the SoS refuse the seat assignments. The SoS just looks at the OrgLaw, which says parties can assign seats as they see fit. He doesn't study the party's constitution or bylaws or platform. The first seat of a party is automatically assigned to the first eligible name in the party list. The second to the second name and so on. Once the last person receives a seat, repeat the process from the first name until each name on the party list has 6 seats or the party runs of seats. After this point, the party leader may assign remaining seats to any eligible citizen(s) they see fit, so long as no one who was not named on the list is assigned more seats than anyone who was named on the list, and the number of citizens awarded seats who were not named on the list is fewer than the number of citizens who were named on the list. Any person assigned a seat as above may decline to take their seats in which case they will be reallocated using the above procedure. Things keep getting more complicated, and in ways that have little apparent benefit. Imagine two parties that each win 36 seats and have three people on their candidate list. Party A wants to assign 6 seats each to the candidates on the list and 6 seats each to three non-list citizens. Party B wants to assign 10 seats to each of its list candidates and 1 seat each to 6 non-list citizens. So Party A would have 18 seats held by list candidates and 18 held by non-list candidates, while Party B would have 30 seats held by list candidates, and 6 held by non-list candidates. Why is Party A's approach preferable, and so much so that we should outlaw Party B's approach? ETA: I see that this example is off because even Party A would not have fewer non-list than list MCs, but hopefully you get my point. Point 1: There are a few problems with legislating about party regulations, which would make it hard in practice to bind parties to their own regulations. One, who would check to ensure that parties are following their own regulations? Certainly not the party leader, if s/he is disobeying them. Also, is it within the Organic purview of the Ziu to control how a party functions? I know I have no law training, but based on a reading of Articles VI and XVII.6, my answer would be no.
Point 2: The provision in question is to prevent a scenario in which, say, two people are listed, who each receive 6 seats, and then 12 additional people are given 2 seats. This is an extreme example, but one in which only 1/3 of seats are given to people named on the list. I could go back to a ratio of seats, something like this:
|
|
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 24, 2015 7:59:28 GMT -6
Also, is it within the Organic purview of the Ziu to control how a party functions? It seems odd to view a rule of "each party can choose its own rule" as more controlling of how a party functions than the one-size-fits-all approach that you're proposing. Your revised language is an improvement, but while I agree with M-P's point about the burden on the SoS imposed by the original proposal, I dislike the solution of forcing parties to give the same number of seats to each MC.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 24, 2015 8:34:10 GMT -6
Also, is it within the Organic purview of the Ziu to control how a party functions? It seems odd to view a rule of "each party can choose its own rule" as more controlling of how a party functions than the one-size-fits-all approach that you're proposing. Your revised language is an improvement, but while I agree with M-P's point about the burden on the SoS imposed by the original proposal, I dislike the solution of forcing parties to give the same number of seats to each MC. Parties already do make their own rules, but I don't find a need to legislate that parties must follow their own rules. If we did; 1) Who would check to make sure parties were following them? As I said, it couldn't be the party leader, and it also couldn't be the SoS (he is much too busy) 2) How would voters know which procedures they liked the best, if that is something that matters to them? I don't voters want to slog through numerous party constitutions and bylaws.
Parties aren't being forced to give each MC the same number of seats, so long as each listed MC gets at least 6. I could revise that number down, or I could get rid of that requirement without really changing the bill a whole lot:
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 24, 2015 8:42:29 GMT -6
Sir C. M. Siervicül, I found a way to include your idea. Even if I feel it is a bit impractical, the spirit is good:
I highlight 1/3 because it may not be necessary to have such a stringent requirement, if parties can impose it on themselves and then announce it to the voters.
Does this make you more amenable?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 24, 2015 8:44:21 GMT -6
1) Who would check to make sure parties were following them? As I said, it couldn't be the party leader, and it also couldn't be the SoS (he is much too busy) If a party enacted internal rules according to a clear process, and then broke them, certainly one of their MCs or one of their voters would have standing for a lawsuit. 2) How would voters know which procedures they liked the best, if that is something that matters to them? I don't voters want to slog through numerous party constitutions and bylaws. Presumably like any other aspect of a party that was actually competitive or important, parties would publicize and compete.
|
|