The Move Your Feet, Lose Your Seat Act

You are, Senator, once again being evasive. Instead of directly answering the question, you have danced around it.

I have attempted to be as clear and responsive as possible. Perhaps I do not understand what question you are asking: please repeat it.

Is it, perhaps, your demand about which new parties have sprung up? I thought I addressed that.

My apologies in advance, but naming the parties that have formed in the last few elections (around the time of elections) doesn't show a high frequency of new parties popping up. The point that you were trying to make, if I read correctly, is that recently there has been a bunch of new parties sprouting up from people who have left their parties for dubious reasons, I'm asking you to provide proof of it. I do not think it is a difficult question.

Remove the "dubious reasons" portion of that, and you have it correct. I already said that it was poor phrasing to say "minor issues," something which you seem to have fixated upon.

I am curious as to your above statement about proof. You say that naming the new parties doesn't "show a high frequency of new parties." I can only question what could conceivably show new parties if my listing of them doesn't do it for you. There has been at least one, and usually two or more new parties each term. That is a fairly high frequency, at least inasmuch as I can see.

Just to be clear, are you claiming that new parties seldom form? Because the essence and only salient element of my point is that new parties form frequently over many issues. Do you disagree with that?

I do not make the assumption that every party will follow the same party, rather, it is the opposing argument that has tried to paint this picture that people are just upping and leaving parties over non-reasons or non-highly important issues, being as that is the rewording, I am merely asking where?

I will quote myself from above. Again. "This is not really important. Call them minor issues, or major issues... it doesn't matter. I honestly do not care. To me, many of them are minor issues, but they are very important to the people concerned and I respect that they hold that opinion. If this point of language bothers you so much, please read it as 'highly important issues' instead. It is not relevant."

Seriously. Since it bothers you so much that I described them as "minor issues" and "nonissues," I have already and repeatedly stated that you can replace the adjective with whatever pleases you. It has very little bearing on my point.

The statement made was people have been leaving parties over minor/non issues, you're now rewording that to say non- "highly important issues." I don't see a difference between calling something a highly important issue and a major issue.

I don't know what I can do for you on this point beyond what I have already said in previous posts several times. Parties have split over nonissues, minor issues, major issues, vital issues... use whatever language you like. I cannot help but suspect, however, that you're seizing on a minor point of language which is entirely tangential because the substance of the argument does not favor your view. But I will give the honoured MC the benefit of the doubt on this point.

As far as the question asking me if my party will do it, I couldn't say, because the only way to truly vote my conscience would be to pay $20 to get a one man party registered, vote for myself, and assign myself the seats. I didn't have to think of a loophole under the current system, I'd have to think of one over the proposed system.

That is a very interesting scenario you propose, but I have to say that it has no bearing on the matter, and you have not answered my question. The question did have bearing on the matter. Let me explicate further.

I asked whether or not your party, whatever it is at the moment, would assign seats permanently or if they would maintain some sort of oversight. By this, I was asking whether or not you thought your party would allow MCs to vote however they pleased on all issues without risk of losing their seats, or if you thought your party would have some element of oversight of whatever degree.

You clearly feel strongly about this issue, and feel you should be allowed to "vote your conscience" (or vote however you please, even if it is consistently contrary to your party's agenda and mandate), yes? To all appearances, you do not feel that someone should lose seats if they vote against the party's general wishes.

Now, consider what may happen. Your party, once it is freed to do so by this broadening of possibilities, will choose one alternative or the other. Knowing your feelings on the matter, will you stay in the party if it decides to exercise oversight? To all appearances and from what you have said with your strong feelings, I would assume that you will remain consistent and leave the party instead. And thereafter, you would either form a new party that has permanently assigned seats that cannot be taken away, or else join a party with such a policy.

Do you see how this increases diversity? The result is a panoply of party policies, with each party deciding which course to take and to what degree. One party might decide to have permanent assignation, while another might have a core issue with mandated voting, and a third might not allow any contrary voting at all.

For some reason, however, you seem to think every party will choose not to allow any contrary voting. Given your own views and what I suspect your actions on the matter will be, I am unable to understand how you reach such a conclusion.

That being said, what is the point in having MCs if the party can just revoke seats? Why not just let the party vote in the Cosa without the problem of MCs that think?

Because not every party will choose to have a policy of revoking seats. I thought I had made this clear, but I have now made it as simple and explained it as much as I can. I hope it is now sufficient, and apologize for my poor efforts previous to this. I am recently moved to the other side of the world in a country entirely foreign to me, so my capacity to make the matter simple was not up to par. I am sorry, and thank you for helping me continue this fruitful discussion.

Deleted

Posts: 0

The Move Your Feet, Lose Your Seat Act Aug 5, 2008 23:18:03 GMT -6

Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2008 23:18:03 GMT -6

Aug 5, 2008 23:06:01 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Thank you for your response, MC.

You are, Senator, once again being evasive. Instead of directly answering the question, you have danced around it.

I have attempted to be as clear and responsive as possible. Perhaps I do not understand what question you are asking: please repeat it.

Is it, perhaps, your demand about which new parties have sprung up? I thought I addressed that.

Remove the "dubious reasons" portion of that, and you have it correct. I already said that it was poor phrasing to say "minor issues," something which you seem to have fixated upon.

I am curious as to your above statement about proof. You say that naming the new parties doesn't "show a high frequency of new parties." I can only question what could conceivably show new parties if my listing of them doesn't do it for you. There has been at least one, and usually two or more new parties each term. That is a fairly high frequency, at least inasmuch as I can see.

Just to be clear, are you claiming that new parties seldom form? Because the essence and only salient element of my point is that new parties form frequently over many issues. Do you disagree with that?

I will quote myself from above. Again. "This is not really important. Call them minor issues, or major issues... it doesn't matter. I honestly do not care. To me, many of them are minor issues, but they are very important to the people concerned and I respect that they hold that opinion. If this point of language bothers you so much, please read it as 'highly important issues' instead. It is not relevant."

Seriously. Since it bothers you so much that I described them as "minor issues" and "nonissues," I have already and repeatedly stated that you can replace the adjective with whatever pleases you. It has very little bearing on my point.

I don't know what I can do for you on this point beyond what I have already said in previous posts several times. Parties have split over nonissues, minor issues, major issues, vital issues... use whatever language you like. I cannot help but suspect, however, that you're seizing on a minor point of language which is entirely tangential because the substance of the argument does not favor your view. But I will give the honoured MC the benefit of the doubt on this point.

That is a very interesting scenario you propose, but I have to say that it has no bearing on the matter, and you have not answered my question. The question did have bearing on the matter. Let me explicate further.

I asked whether or not your party, whatever it is at the moment, would assign seats permanently or if they would maintain some sort of oversight. By this, I was asking whether or not you thought your party would allow MCs to vote however they pleased on all issues without risk of losing their seats, or if you thought your party would have some element of oversight of whatever degree.

You clearly feel strongly about this issue, and feel you should be allowed to "vote your conscience" (or vote however you please, even if it is consistently contrary to your party's agenda and mandate), yes? To all appearances, you do not feel that someone should lose seats if they vote against the party's general wishes.

Now, consider what may happen. Your party, once it is freed to do so by this broadening of possibilities, will choose one alternative or the other. Knowing your feelings on the matter, will you stay in the party if it decides to exercise oversight? To all appearances and from what you have said with your strong feelings, I would assume that you will remain consistent and leave the party instead. And thereafter, you would either form a new party that has permanently assigned seats that cannot be taken away, or else join a party with such a policy.

Do you see how this increases diversity? The result is a panoply of party policies, with each party deciding which course to take and to what degree. One party might decide to have permanent assignation, while another might have a core issue with mandated voting, and a third might not allow any contrary voting at all.

For some reason, however, you seem to think every party will choose not to allow any contrary voting. Given your own views and what I suspect your actions on the matter will be, I am unable to understand how you reach such a conclusion.

That being said, what is the point in having MCs if the party can just revoke seats? Why not just let the party vote in the Cosa without the problem of MCs that think?

Because not every party will choose to have a policy of revoking seats. I thought I had made this clear, but I have now made it as simple and explained it as much as I can. I hope it is now sufficient, and apologize for my poor efforts previous to this. I am recently moved to the other side of the world in a country entirely foreign to me, so my capacity to make the matter simple was not up to par. I am sorry, and thank you for helping me continue this fruitful discussion.

I appreciate your response Senator, even if it is jumping around the answer. I asked for a list of these so called parties. A new party or two coming up each cycle is hardly high frequency. With your wording, you implied in that this is in recent history, as in the last few months, not scattered over a few elections. That is the point I'm making, your wording is completely off being as it implies this is an emergency and should be addressed. New parties are not sprouting up like weeds, as with any election, there is going to be new parties with new issues if older parties can't adapt. the Talossan system merely makes it easy for new parties, putting this law in place will not lower the amount of new parties, but rather, I see quite the opposite happening.

I do not know where my party stands on the issue, being as my party has yet to register, it really is a moot question. I'm, at the moment, independent.

If I know that I don't have the right to vote my conscience on issues, there is no reason for me to be in that party. If a party makes mistakes and awards seats to an irresponsible MC who abuses their influence, they will be dealt with and the party will suffer the consequences, the next election cycle. Your system works against diversity.

Take this debate, if I was part of a party that said "if you disagree with us you'll have your seats removed" and I spoke up against this while my party agreed with it, they could very well remove my seats before the vote and assign them to some drone that will vote along party lines. Is that the system, Senator, you wish to create?

I ask again, if this is the system you create, why not just let the party, not the person, vote. That is, after all, an extreme possibility what you're proposing, no matter how much you want to paint it with pretty words to answer what is otherwise a non issue in Talossa, the low number of new parties that have come up in the last few elections.

You claim this works for diversity, I firmly believes it works against diversity.

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu

CONSISTE ET COGITA

Posts: 9,463
Talossan Since: 6-9-2006

The Move Your Feet, Lose Your Seat Act Aug 5, 2008 23:41:43 GMT -6

Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 5, 2008 23:41:43 GMT -6

I appreciate your response Senator, even if it is jumping around the answer. I asked for a list of these so called parties. A new party or two coming up each cycle is hardly high frequency.

Then on that point, we differ. To me, a new party or two every term is a high frequency. Regardless of whether you call it "high" or "low," however, the point remains that new parties form quite regularly, over many issues.

With your wording, you implied in that this is in recent history, as in the last few months, not scattered over a few elections.

A few elections is recent history. If you thought I meant the past few months, you were very wrong. But I suppose that the past few months are also indicative of that of which I was speaking. Individuals have left many parties and moved to others, and new ones have been formed.

That is the point I'm making, your wording is completely off being as it implies this is an emergency and should be addressed. New parties are not sprouting up like weeds, as with any election, there is going to be new parties with new issues if older parties can't adapt. the Talossan system merely makes it easy for new parties, putting this law in place will not lower the amount of new parties, but rather, I see quite the opposite happening.

An emergency? I'm sorry if it appears I implied that. Would you mind quoting the part of my replies that implied this was an "emergency?"

I do agree that "there [are] going to be new parties with new issues if older parties can't adapt." Indeed, I aim to provide yet another and in fact vital issue around which new parties may form to help consolidate different views into political power units.

You say that you think reform and allowing nonpermanent seating rules for parties will cause the opposite, but you forgot to include any evidence, reasoning, or examples of why this might be so. Indeed, it is just a vague and unsupported statement at the heart of your response. Would you mind telling me how opening this option up will hinder new parties from forming, please?

I do not know where my party stands on the issue, being as my party has yet to register, it really is a moot question. I'm, at the moment, independent.

If I know that I don't have the right to vote my conscience on issues, there is no reason for me to be in that party. If a party makes mistakes and awards seats to an irresponsible MC who abuses their influence, they will be dealt with and the party will suffer the consequences, the next election cycle. Your system works against diversity.

While you first say you don't know where your party stands, I am pleased to see you follow it by making clear your own stance. To wit, you say that if your party does not assign seats permanently without oversight, you say "there is no reason for [you] to be in that party." This would seem to go directly into what I stated before: you would leave your party in such a case, and go to one that did have permanent seats. You might even form a new party for that purpose, yes?

How is this "against diversity?" To all appearances, it is allowing parties much greater freedom on choosing a course in these matters, allowing them to differentiate themselves from other parties. Is there some reason you would not go to a new party?

You really need to explain, since it sure seems to me like you are arguing my point for me. You yourself demonstrate the very diversity this reform will allow.

Take this debate, if I was part of a party that said "if you disagree with us you'll have your seats removed" and I spoke up against this while my party agreed with it, they could very well remove my seats before the vote and assign them to some drone that will vote along party lines. Is that the system, Senator, you wish to create?

Indeed, it is. If you belong to that party and agree to its charter and rules, then you should be beholden to those rules.

Presumably, in your hypothetical you would strongly dislike this "drone party," yes? It might even be safe to say you would leave it and join a party you don't think is composed of "drones," or start a new one, yes?

Right now, the citizens and potential MCs have no choice. All parties, according to popular interpretation of the law, must permanently assign seats. If I vote for the Free Speech Party, then I have no assurances that their MCs will carry out my mandated, democratically enacted will and defend Free Speech. Their MCs, locked and assured in their seats, can vote against Free Speech or champion legislation to curtail it. They can even sponsor such legislation.

I do indeed want to create a system where a party's agenda has real and enforceable meaning.

I ask again, if this is the system you create, why not just let the party, not the person, vote. That is, after all, an extreme possibility what you're proposing, no matter how much you want to paint it with pretty words to answer what is otherwise a non issue in Talossa, the low number of new parties that have come up in the last few elections.

You keep repeating variations of this line, implying that reform would remove free will from MCs and make them redundant. But do you really not understand that such a scenario would depend on every party deciding on total oversight? You yourself are evidence that such will never happen. You have come out stridently in favor of being able to vote however you please, and have said you would not belong to a party that didn't permit that. Why do you think every other Talossan would be happy with less freedom than you desire? Don't you see there is room for different opinions on the matter, represented by different parties?

You claim this works for diversity, I firmly believes it works against diversity.

You have indeed said you think it works against diversity. I am just hard-pressed to see how it would do so, and you have declined to be specific. Maybe you could oblige me with some specifics?

Deleted

Posts: 0

The Move Your Feet, Lose Your Seat Act Aug 6, 2008 6:00:13 GMT -6

Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2008 6:00:13 GMT -6

Aug 5, 2008 23:41:43 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I appreciate your response Senator, even if it is jumping around the answer. I asked for a list of these so called parties. A new party or two coming up each cycle is hardly high frequency.

Then on that point, we differ. To me, a new party or two every term is a high frequency. Regardless of whether you call it "high" or "low," however, the point remains that new parties form quite regularly, over many issues.

Regularly and "high frequency" are two different things.

A few elections is recent history. If you thought I meant the past few months, you were very wrong. But I suppose that the past few months are also indicative of that of which I was speaking. Individuals have left many parties and moved to others, and new ones have been formed.

I disagree, given the relative age of Talossa and how much she changes from election to election, it is hard to judge her by a few elections ago. The Talossa of 2005 is completely different than the Talossa of 2008. When we're dealing with such a small country, a lot can happen in the matter of 3 years. In a country the size of the United States, 3 years makes less of a difference per se as a good portion of the citizens didn't just move into the country with fresh ideas in the last 3 years.

An emergency? I'm sorry if it appears I implied that. Would you mind quoting the part of my replies that implied this was an "emergency?"

It was your wording, as I stated. Quit the word games Senator. "New parties forming at a high frequency over minor issues" implies this is some kind of emergency that needs to be confronted.

I do agree that "there [are] going to be new parties with new issues if older parties can't adapt." Indeed, I aim to provide yet another and in fact vital issue around which new parties may form to help consolidate different views into political power units.

You say that you think reform and allowing nonpermanent seating rules for parties will cause the opposite, but you forgot to include any evidence, reasoning, or examples of why this might be so. Indeed, it is just a vague and unsupported statement at the heart of your response. Would you mind telling me how opening this option up will hinder new parties from forming, please?

Senator, do me a favor, go back and reread what I said. There really isn't a way to misunderstand it. I said this bill will not stop the high frequency of new parties forming, which you brought up as a problem, but "quite the opposite." Meaning, I see MORE parties forming.

While you first say you don't know where your party stands, I am pleased to see you follow it by making clear your own stance. To wit, you say that if your party does not assign seats permanently without oversight, you say "there is no reason for [you] to be in that party." This would seem to go directly into what I stated before: you would leave your party in such a case, and go to one that did have permanent seats. You might even form a new party for that purpose, yes?

By a technicality, I am not in a party. I don't see how this would be confusing. I might form a new party to ensure that I can vote or debate an issue without worrying about having my seats removed.

How is this "against diversity?" To all appearances, it is allowing parties much greater freedom on choosing a course in these matters, allowing them to differentiate themselves from other parties. Is there some reason you would not go to a new party?

You really need to explain, since it sure seems to me like you are arguing my point for me. You yourself demonstrate the very diversity this reform will allow.

Are you kidding me with this nonsense Senator? I am demonstrating the very diversity this reform will disallow. This kind of debate would not be possible if I knew that my party has the right to strip me of my seats because I disagree with its stance. Seriously, this isn't a complicated point. I fail to see why it keeps evading you.

Indeed, it is. If you belong to that party and agree to its charter and rules, then you should be beholden to those rules.

Presumably, in your hypothetical you would strongly dislike this "drone party," yes? It might even be safe to say you would leave it and join a party you don't think is composed of "drones," or start a new one, yes?

Right now, the citizens and potential MCs have no choice. All parties, according to popular interpretation of the law, must permanently assign seats. If I vote for the Free Speech Party, then I have no assurances that their MCs will carry out my mandated, democratically enacted will and defend Free Speech. Their MCs, locked and assured in their seats, can vote against Free Speech or champion legislation to curtail it. They can even sponsor such legislation.

If a party makes a bad choice and assigns seats to an irresponsible MC, the party should have to deal with its mistakes. Just as I have to deal with my mistakes that I make. It would then be up to the people who voted for that party or members of that party to fix the party. This isn't possible under your reform system. Speaking up against your party and its way of doing things could result in you losing your seats, where is the diversity? Where is the freedom of thought?

I do indeed want to create a system where a party's agenda has real and enforceable meaning.

Given our "recent" history I won't even comment on this. It is comical.

You keep repeating variations of this line, implying that reform would remove free will from MCs and make them redundant. But do you really not understand that such a scenario would depend on every party deciding on total oversight? You yourself are evidence that such will never happen. You have come out stridently in favor of being able to vote however you please, and have said you would not belong to a party that didn't permit that. Why do you think every other Talossan would be happy with less freedom than you desire? Don't you see there is room for different opinions on the matter, represented by different parties?

I think you and every other Talossa are entitled to their opinion. I just believe that *my* opinion favours allowing MCs to have their own without fear of retribution to their party. The only way to ensure this would be not to be in a party, period, if your bill passes. The mere fact that I'm already thinking of loopholes in YOUR proposed system should demonstrate this enough. You aren't creating more diversity here Senator, the is the diversity created under the current system.

You claim this works for diversity, I firmly believes it works against diversity.

You have indeed said you think it works against diversity. I am just hard-pressed to see how it would do so, and you have declined to be specific. Maybe you could oblige me with some specifics?

Being that I've already typed this 100 times, I'll do it once more. Less people would be more inclined to speak up against their parties. By allowing a party to strip it seats, it lowers the debate on acts. If you are firmly against an act, you couldn't debate it, you couldn't vote against it, the party would take your seats away. This lowers diversity senator, as it would be the party heads that would have the power to "issue edicts" and force MCs to vote the way they want.

You have failed to demonstrate anything wrong with the current system. I'm still trying to figure out why this is even being debated. You'll have to pardon me for not wanting to be part of a system or party that would have the right to tell me how to think, many many apologies Senator.

I will note, for some reason, this wasn't clarked this month. Is there any reason why the author is waiting?

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu

CONSISTE ET COGITA

Posts: 9,463
Talossan Since: 6-9-2006

The Move Your Feet, Lose Your Seat Act Aug 6, 2008 7:03:01 GMT -6

Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 6, 2008 7:03:01 GMT -6

Regularly and "high frequency" are two different things.

Er... yes. Again, if this issue of semantics is important, I happily admit to whatever language the honoured MC would like. The point, as I said, is that parties form with regularity. You (strangely) think that a party or two forming every term is a low amount. I think it's rather high. Those subjective terms are again, not at all important and tangential.

I urge you, if you see any other adjectives that bother you and are not relevant, please change them as you see fit.

I disagree, given the relative age of Talossa and how much she changes from election to election, it is hard to judge her by a few elections ago. The Talossa of 2005 is completely different than the Talossa of 2008. When we're dealing with such a small country, a lot can happen in the matter of 3 years. In a country the size of the United States, 3 years makes less of a difference per se as a good portion of the citizens didn't just move into the country with fresh ideas in the last 3 years.

...yes. Fine. Seriously, these things don't matter. Let me be very clear on this so we can get it out of the way:

Parties split over major issues, minor issues, and nonissues all. The reasons why new parties form and the severity of those reasons are not important, so you can use whatever adjective you like. The important thing to actually note is that new parties do form.
Two parties forming per term is either a "low" or "high" frequency, entirely subjectively. The descriptor is not important, as long as it is recognized that they do form at this regular rate. The important thing to actually note is that the new parties that form, do so fairly regularly.
"Recent" may describe three years ago or three months ago, depending on your perspective, again with this entirely subjective term. The important thing to recognize is that I believe my argument to be persuasive across both time spans.

It was your wording, as I stated. Quit the word games Senator. "New parties forming at a high frequency over minor issues" implies this is some kind of emergency that needs to be confronted.

You want me to quit the word games? I am trying not to engage in them as best I can. I happily and immediately cede all points of semantics. And even though I don't happen to think what you quoted implies any kind of emergency, I cede that point too. It was absolutely malicious of me to imply that there was some manner of emergency, and I accept twenty metaphorical lashes. Let us move on.

Senator, do me a favor, go back and reread what I said. There really isn't a way to misunderstand it. I said this bill will not stop the high frequency of new parties forming, which you brought up as a problem, but "quite the opposite." Meaning, I see MORE parties forming.

Well, as it actually happens I have the great good fortune of being able to read back through the thread, on your advice, of course. Our discussion really began when I addressed a comment to you on page 4. You had directed a reply at Ministreu Asmourescu, and I quoted you and directed my own thoughts your way. My post is here. Careful inspection will reveal that I had little to say about whether or not "high frequency of new parties" was a good or bad thing, and I certainly never tried to say that this reform would stop that. Indeed, if you read my post, you will see I have from the beginning said nearly the opposite: this greater diversity might even increase the formation of new parties. If you meant our first exchange very early in the thread, it is also available and you will see, again, no inconsistencies.

To sum up: at no point did I speak of the "high frequency of new parties forming" as a "problem." This reform is not intended to solve such a "problem," inasmuch as I can see. If you were under that illusion or I somehow gave you that impression with hidden subtext you saw, then I apologize.

As I said from the beginning, this will create greater diversity, and that may even mean more parties (not that I think that's a goal or even terribly desirous).

By a technicality, I am not in a party. I don't see how this would be confusing. I might form a new party to ensure that I can vote or debate an issue without worrying about having my seats removed.

...that does not seem topical. I am sure you and your current positions are very interesting, but I was pointing out that you would likely form a new party or join a different one if you were not granted permanence of seats.

Are you kidding me with this nonsense Senator? I am demonstrating the very diversity this reform will disallow. This kind of debate would not be possible if I knew that my party has the right to strip me of my seats because I disagree with its stance. Seriously, this isn't a complicated point. I fail to see why it keeps evading you.

...

Um.

Okay. I will do it again.

You belong to party A. Under this reform, party A could either adopt a policy of permanence of seats (so you could vote as you please), or they could adopt some form of oversight. Those are their two (2) options.

You do not seem to like the idea of having your seats taken away if you vote against your party's guidelines. You have implied that if your party adopted rules that would allow them oversight, so they could take away some of your seats, you would thereafter leave that party (party A in our example).

So, because party A adopts a rule establishing oversight, you would then leave that party (party A).

A different party, which we will call party B, has permanence of seats. This is the policy you like. Presumably, you would join and vote for party B instead of party A, since party B has a policy you like and party A has a policy you don't like. This is called "voter preference," and in this case your preference would be for the second party, party B, since you agree with them more than you do with party A.

So now party B has your support and your vote. Party B is stronger because of it, and you are happy because you are in a party that has a policy of not removing seats.

Now, what we see here is that because of allowing the parties the freedom to adopt their own policies, they have taken different sides on the matter. And in this case, you would join a party that took the side with which you agreed (party B), making it a stronger party. Presumably the adherents to party A (the one you left) feel differently, and maybe some will go from party B to party A, in a reverse of your move, in order to belong to a party that represents its voters and agenda very strongly.

Notice how the two parties have different policies and different stances on the matter. You can still vote how you please, and in fact there is a much broader set of choices for the voters and MCs.

You would still be able to disagree with things, because you would belong to a party that allowed it. By all indicators, you would only belong to such a party, and so it would not be able to strip you of your seats.

So there are two parties, with different policies. There would probably be many more than that, but this demonstrates my point.

I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that.

Now do you understand?

If a party makes a bad choice and assigns seats to an irresponsible MC, the party should have to deal with its mistakes. Just as I have to deal with my mistakes that I make. It would then be up to the people who voted for that party or members of that party to fix the party. This isn't possible under your reform system. Speaking up against your party and its way of doing things could result in you losing your seats, where is the diversity? Where is the freedom of thought?

Again, I repeat that presumably only some parties would strip seats. Your example, as I have said many times now, assumes that all parties would adopt the policy of absolute oversight, but that assumption is wildly inconsistent with everything I would expect from Talossan politics.

To return to my example, under the reform you would move to a party that had no oversight (party B) and so you could speak against them and they could not take away your seats. Other parties could do that to their MCs based on their own rules and policies. This is more freedom of thought, not less.

Given our "recent" history I won't even comment on this. It is comical.

I repeat that I am not interested in making this about you. You have talked at great length about yourself, but I think that it would be uncouth for me to address such. Let us try to remain professional, no matter what you find "comical."

I think you and every other Talossa are entitled to their opinion. I just believe that *my* opinion favours allowing MCs to have their own without fear of retribution to their party. The only way to ensure this would be not to be in a party, period, if your bill passes. The mere fact that I'm already thinking of loopholes in YOUR proposed system should demonstrate this enough. You aren't creating more diversity here Senator, the is the diversity created under the current system.

Maybe the problem here is that you don't understand the nature of the reform. The idea is to allow parties to choose their own rules, a freedom which they do not currently have. One party can choose to make their seats permanent, while a second will almost certainly choose otherwise. Currently, the only "diversity" is that every party is mandated to allow its MCs to vote as they please, even if the party wishes to establish rules to the contrary to better serve the electorate.

Being that I've already typed this 100 times, I'll do it once more. Less people would be more inclined to speak up against their parties. By allowing a party to strip it seats, it lowers the debate on acts. If you are firmly against an act, you couldn't debate it, you couldn't vote against it, the party would take your seats away. This lowers diversity senator, as it would be the party heads that would have the power to "issue edicts" and force MCs to vote the way they want.

It is amazing you can type something 100 times and not consider its essential assumptions. No one would be forced to join a party that has oversight. You and any other MC can join whatever party you please, including one that has rules that establish that they cannot take away seats.

You have failed to demonstrate anything wrong with the current system. I'm still trying to figure out why this is even being debated. You'll have to pardon me for not wanting to be part of a system or party that would have the right to tell me how to think, many many apologies Senator.

You would not have to be part of such a party. You could join a different one, with different rules. I have said this numerous times, but you persist in assuming that every party will decide on absolute oversight.

As to the system, I think this is an improvement and will help matters. Maybe there is no "emergency" (twenty more lashes for me!) but this would be better, I believe, since it would allow parties to adopt different (let me repeat, different) polities on the matter and create more political freedom and diversity.