|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 6, 2008 10:47:44 GMT -6
Only when there wasn't enough sheep for the kebabs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2008 15:27:42 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 tazwo 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. The solution is not so simple Senator. And I do not appreciate your obvious patronizing tone that has been embedded in most of the exchanges we have had. Quit it. You’re making it more relevant by keeping this up. I implore you to take your own advice here when it comes to time. You made the assumption that we all would agree with your time frame and are now trying to redefine what you meant. If you don’t want to argue semantics, than don’t, but watch what you say. And yet you are. Again, if you want to drop this part, quit with the condescending bullsh*t. The high frequency “argument” seemed to be used to justify these acts. By that alone, it would seem that you were favoring this as a bad thing. As for the rest, I’m going to hold off on this. I will give you that allowing this to pass will create greater diversity in ONE realm, and that is for a party to decide how totalitarian it wants to be with its seats. The diversity it could potentially take away from his the differing view points and debates over contentious issues, i.e. this one. It seems almost moronic to be forced to make this decision. Party A supports acts A, B, C, D, & E. But reserves the right to remove your seats for going against the party. Party B supports the opposite acts F, G, H, I, & J. but allows the MCs to keep their seats. I agree with Party A except for F, my views are ABDIE, so I differ on ONE point. Now, I have to vote for something I don’t believe in and could very well be against for fear of losing my seats. If I bring up to my party that I will not vote for it or am considering otherwise, I could very well have my seats removed before hand. Even though I’m loyal to 4/5 of that party and only 1/5 of the other. The only logical thing to do, by your standards, would be to join party B where I disagree with 4/5 of that party but can vote how I see fit and how the party trusts me to vote without fear. That being said, I would have to then consistently vote against party lines and, essentially, throw egg on my current parties face. Where is the diversity in that? How is creating a law that basically could give a party potential to abuse power and force people to vote how a few party heads sees fits creating more diversity. By merely giving parties the right to remove seats does not create diversity, potentially ripping a person’s right to vote as they see fit does not create more diversity. I don’t get it, how would Party B be stronger with yet another voice dividing seats up and each member have less of a say in the Cosa? If anything, the members of your party would become stronger if the seats were allocated to them. It is self-defeating. And yet, what is being proposed is that *this* becomes a central issue to Talossa. That other issues would take a back seat to this. People would want to join party B to protect their freedom to vote as they see fit. Therefore, Party B could very well get a great number of votes based on *this* sheer issue alone. And possibly be part of a party I completely disagree with. It was NEVER an issue of not understanding Senator, and again, quit the condescending tone. I don’t see why I would want to be forced to create a party that completely agrees with everything another party stands for except this one issue. What you’re proposing could also lead to a great number of parties. I don’t believe that is what you want. I don’t think Talossa needs 4 parties, 2 agree on everything but disagree with this, and the other 2 agree on the opposite but disagree on this. It seems overly redundant. And yet, the assumptions being made, not by you, that people are upping and leaving parties all the time. Yes, under your reform, I could leave my party, lose my seats, and have no way to counter what I don’t believe in. This is less freedom of thought, I would be forced to agree with a party if I wanted to keep my seats. Actually, I haven’t. I used a valid example that is in direct relation to these acts. Would you have me have named names of other individuals to make it even? Would that make you feel better Senator? I implore, oh free thinking Senator, to take your own advice, keep it professional. No, the problem is that I understand it all to well. And to sum up, you erode the rights of MCs in favor for the rights of parties. Likewise. And be forced to pay money to create a party that fits perfectly to the individual, or join a party they otherwise completely disagree with. I don’t assume every party would adopt this. I’m merely pointing out the greater potential for abuse this creates. Just as the potential for abuse was pointed out by your side (people leave parties and keeping seats.) Oh yes, my esteemed Senator. It creates parties to have DIFFERENT policies based on ONE issue. Because we don’t have parties that have different policies as it is now? I will note, for some reason, this wasn't clarked this month. Is there any reason why the author is waiting? It wasn’t under "active" discussion up until you brought it back up Senator.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Aug 7, 2008 15:38:34 GMT -6
If the Senator from M-M, and I mean no disrespect, would read the responses of the MC from Vuode, he would find that his arguments are quite convincing, and make quite a bit of sense. That power WILL be abused! Best not to have it at all...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 8, 2008 0:31:23 GMT -6
I thank MC Toctviachteir and MC Gavartich for their contributions. MC Toctviachteir, I trust you will not be offended if I omit a response to certain of your comments. I will reply to everything topical. The high frequency “argument” seemed to be used to justify these acts. By that alone, it would seem that you were favoring this as a bad thing. As for the rest, I’m going to hold off on this. I am not certain who made such an argument of justification. I did not, as I believe I conclusively demonstrated in the posts I indicated at length to you above - that which you are "holding off on." I have said from the beginning that my intent and the justification for reform is the increased diversity of political life that will be generated. It is my view that this will be more interesting, since it will elevate parties to a more influential role. I will give you that allowing this to pass will create greater diversity in ONE realm, and that is for a party to decide how totalitarian it wants to be with its seats. The diversity it could potentially take away from his the differing view points and debates over contentious issues, i.e. this one. The only way differing viewpoints and debates could be stifled would be if every party decided to stifle them, and no MC objected to such a circumstance. Such a scenario is farfetched beyond belief. I am hard-pressed to imagine you yourself succumbing docilely, after all. It seems almost moronic to be forced to make this decision. Party A supports acts A, B, C, D, & E. But reserves the right to remove your seats for going against the party. Party B supports the opposite acts F, G, H, I, & J. but allows the MCs to keep their seats. I agree with Party A except for F, my views are ABDIE, so I differ on ONE point. Now, I have to vote for something I don’t believe in and could very well be against for fear of losing my seats. If I bring up to my party that I will not vote for it or am considering otherwise, I could very well have my seats removed before hand. Even though I’m loyal to 4/5 of that party and only 1/5 of the other. The only logical thing to do, by your standards, would be to join party B where I disagree with 4/5 of that party but can vote how I see fit and how the party trusts me to vote without fear. That being said, I would have to then consistently vote against party lines and, essentially, throw egg on my current parties face. Where is the diversity in that? How is creating a law that basically could give a party potential to abuse power and force people to vote how a few party heads sees fits creating more diversity. By merely giving parties the right to remove seats does not create diversity, potentially ripping a person’s right to vote as they see fit does not create more diversity. Actually, the logical thing in your strawman argument would be to create or join Party C, which almost certainly would have sprung up in competition with Party A. We have fiercely independent people in our nation, and MCs are an even more independent breed. Do you think many MCs in Party A are going to happily go along with it? IS it not more likely - even almost certain - that many or most of the MCs and party members are going to instead join a new party, that represents all of their beliefs? What you are doing, MC, is illustrating with wondrous efficiency the marvels of democracy. People and MCs are never going to find parties whose policies and issues are perfectly in line with their own. There will always be disagreement. But the strongest parties will be those whose issues and policies on the whole appeal to the most people. Perhaps you value Party A enough to put up with the element with which you dislike, their oversight rules: and so you would stay in that party. Perhaps you value your own freedom of voting moreso, in which case you would leave. The strongest parties will be those who correctly balance popular opinion in all of these matters in delicate balance. In other words: a democracy. I don’t get it, how would Party B be stronger with yet another voice dividing seats up and each member have less of a say in the Cosa? If anything, the members of your party would become stronger if the seats were allocated to them. It is self-defeating. Parties are stronger with more people in them, not less. More people means more votes at election time, and more hands to do the labour through the duration of the term. To phrase it practically: if you belong to a party, are you not happy when you get new members? And yet, what is being proposed is that *this* becomes a central issue to Talossa. That other issues would take a back seat to this. People would want to join party B to protect their freedom to vote as they see fit. Therefore, Party B could very well get a great number of votes based on *this* sheer issue alone. Other issues would take a backseat to this? That is interesting. I think this policy would be a major factor, but not the most important. Consider party rule: the LRT, as a I recall, was a democracy of some sort that elected its leader. The RUMP has as its leader Hooligan through an unofficial mobocracy. And yet no one even bothered to raise the issue of this point of party policy during the last election, or indeed since the last election. It is an absolute nonissue, since for the most part parties are unimportant except symbolically and at election time. And possibly be part of a party I completely disagree with. I would be rather surprised if you joined a party you completely disagreed with. That would seem counterproductive. Join the one with which you agree the most, is my advice. Just a general rule of thumb. I don’t see why I would want to be forced to create a party that completely agrees with everything another party stands for except this one issue. What you’re proposing could also lead to a great number of parties. I don’t believe that is what you want. I don’t think Talossa needs 4 parties, 2 agree on everything but disagree with this, and the other 2 agree on the opposite but disagree on this. It seems overly redundant. I agree, I doubt every party will split thus, either. You were spinning scenarios, I was answering with my own. If every party decided on absolute oversight, then only in that spectacularly unlikely case would we see a doubling of the parties as each one split. I can honestly say I cannot think of any parties that seem like they would even consider absolute oversight. Maybe you wouldn't mind naming the parties you feel will tend towards such tyranny? Assuming you do not (since it is rather a hard task), then I think you will see why "overly redundant" parties are unlikely. I am merely demonstrating that there is no danger in this reform. Even in the doomsday scenario you suggest (every party choosing absolute oversight), we would simply see a surge of new parties. Since this doomsday scenario is laughably unlikely, your worries about redundancy are needless. And yet, the assumptions being made, not by you, that people are upping and leaving parties all the time. Er, I suppose. I'm not sure "all the time" is accurate; that seems to be hyperbole on your part, yes? If I did say it, that is not true. MC Preston, for one, still belongs to the party that gave him Cosa seats granted them by the people's vote. Yes, under your reform, I could leave my party, lose my seats, and have no way to counter what I don’t believe in. This is less freedom of thought, I would be forced to agree with a party if I wanted to keep my seats. If you belonged to a party that permitted no dissent, that hypothetical scenario would indeed occur. Do you think yourself likely to join a party that doesn't permit dissent? To spin a similar tale: under the current scenario, MC Gavaritch could kidnap my dog and hold it for ransom unless I voted the way he desired. Do we need to make a rule saying that no one may be a member of the Ziu if they have a pet, to counteract this potentiality? No, because it's mildly unlikely. In the same way, I consider it somewhat unlikely you will join a party that allows no dissent (which is part of the further unlikely scenario in which such a party exists). And to sum up, you erode the rights of MCs in favor for the rights of parties. MCs should represent the will of the people. Whatever voting "rights" they have are secondary to ensuring democracy. I don't want to vote for a party, and then have my vote negated because a party member decided to leave and take my vote with them to another cause. And I don't want the reason I voted for a party - their stances on the issues - made irrelevant, because MCs can vote however they please on the issues. I want to give the system the power to actually enforce the will of the people, so that my vote - and your vote - does more than just give power to people. You want MCs to have the power to ignore their parties. You don't want to give parties the freedom to trust their MCs or exercise some oversight (according to that party's desires). But I think everyone in government - party members, party leaders, and Members of Cosa - should be beholden to the will of the people, because it is from that will that they get any power at all. If the people want to vote for a party that has some oversight and will enforce its mandate with teeth, then the people's will should be done. If they want to vote for a party that prides itself on trust and conscientious voting of its MCs, then the people's will should be done. And be forced to pay money to create a party that fits perfectly to the individual, or join a party they otherwise completely disagree with. You present a false dichotomy. "Perfect party" or "completely disagree" are not the only choices. This is nothing so absurdly binary. I suspect things will play out much as they do now: each person belongs to the party that best represents their interests as a whole. Few parties, unless they are indeed one-person parties, are "perfect." And few people join parties with which they "completely disagree." I don’t assume every party would adopt this. I’m merely pointing out the greater potential for abuse this creates. Just as the potential for abuse was pointed out by your side (people leave parties and keeping seats.) By opening up the options and letting democracy sort it out, this removes abuse. It doesn't generate more potential for abuse. As I outlined above, the absolute worse-case scenario would be that every party adopts a policy of absolute oversight. But thinking that MCs would happily accept such a thing beggars belief, even if the scenario in the first place wasn't incredibly unlikely. Perhaps you have thought of some possibility for abuse other than you have mentioned. If that is the case, please say so. But so far the worse you have come up with is the above, which would be sorted out by the very reform you dislike and by the will of the people. If the Senator from M-M, and I mean no disrespect, would read the responses of the MC from Vuode, he would find that his arguments are quite convincing, and make quite a bit of sense. That power WILL be abused! Best not to have it at all... I disagree. Let us take the worst-case scenario: every political party now extant decides to exercise total oversight over all votes, essentially eliminating MCs from the process entirely and making party leaders the sole arbiters of each vote, assuming each party has also in turn become some manner of dictatorship within itself. Now, in this scenario, is there anyone who doubts that within that very day, we would have at least two new parties, and probably more than that, with similar goals as the extant ones but with different policies? I can think of a half-dozen MCs off the top of my head who would not tolerate being straw men. If I were an MC, I wouldn't either! In point of fact, is it not the case that virtually no MC would be happy representing a party wherein they had no freedom of choice when it came to differentiating from party policy- unless it were a one-man party and they were setting policy in the first place, of course! Who here honestly thinks that some scenario could occur wherein MCs all meekly bowed to party leaders who become universally tyrannous, when those MCs had every easy option of doing otherwise? In fact, let me ask the MCs in this thread who belong (unofficially or officially) to one party or another, and who exercise significant influence on those party's policies: which of you is going to demand full oversight, and eliminate all of your own freedom of dissent from your party? Earlier in this thread, MC Dreu, you made the excellent point that it is not fair for voters to cast their vote - their mandate - for an individual and have that mandate be nullified should a single individual be rash or corrupt. That is one flaw of the current system: parties are effective only at election time and as rough aggregates, rather than real political parties. And of course, this is because their only power (assuming they do not compose the government) derives from the assignation of Cosa seats, which is done but once a term. After seats are assigned to an MC and for the duration of that term's Clarks, parties become less and less meaningful until the next election. I am of the opinion that political parties should be unchained, to become what the people need. Give them the opportunity to actually enforce the will of the voters! The RUMP has 100 seats, even though the voters gave it 132. The PP, which received zero votes from the citizens who are supposed to direct this nation's political life, has 20 seats. I'm not denigrating the PP, which I am sure will be a fine party, but isn't the will of the people supposed to be what is expressed by the Cosa? Aren't MCs supposed to be the representatives of the people's votes, as assigned to parties? Thank you for your patience.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 8:34:30 GMT -6
I thank MC Toctviachteir and MC Gavartich for their contributions. MC Toctviachteir, I trust you will not be offended if I omit a response to certain of your comments. I will reply to everything topical. The high frequency “argument” seemed to be used to justify these acts. By that alone, it would seem that you were favoring this as a bad thing. As for the rest, I’m going to hold off on this. I am not certain who made such an argument of justification. I did not, as I believe I conclusively demonstrated in the posts I indicated at length to you above - that which you are "holding off on." I have said from the beginning that my intent and the justification for reform is the increased diversity of political life that will be generated. It is my view that this will be more interesting, since it will elevate parties to a more influential role. I disagree Senator. You’re trying to create more diversity for ONE aspect of party policy, not diversity based on actual issues. It seems, Senator, and I may be mistaken, what you’re claiming would happen is more parties would pop up with pretty much identical issues, but slight variations on policy. And I never said EVERY party would stifle them, I am, as I have previously said, merely pointing out the higher degree of abuse that is possible than what is now. I hardly believe my arguments fall under your use of “straw man.” I am not misrepresenting what you believe, I merely took what was said by your side of the argument and presented an extreme scenario, not unlike the extreme scenario that was being presented by your side, not necessarily you. I am not misrepresenting your views, I’m commenting on what they might lead to. Parties shouldn’t balance popular opinion, that is up to the government to do. The party is an extension of a group of like minded individuals who share common belief(s) and believe they have the best way to direct the government. What you’re proposing, I believe, lessens democracy, it increases the chance of democracy being eroded. I have demonstrated this by my extreme scenario. This kind of scenario, however, is almost impossible under the current system. How can an act that lowers the vote of people in favour of block voting be considered an increase to the democratic process? Yes and no Senator. Parties are only stronger with more people in them if it is equal to their say in the Cosa. Party A has 60 seats, with 6 MCs, 10 seats a person. Party B has 60 seats, with 6 MCs, 10 seats a person. An MC is “removed” from his post for disagreeing with party A, perhaps publicly or perhaps privately, but the end result is their seats are removed. They join up with Party B. The seats are reallocated to the 5 remaining MCs of Party A, thus leading to 12 seats per MC. Giving each MC in Party A a greater voice in the Cosa. Party B decides they really like this person and assigns him seats in their party, so now there are 7 MCs diving up 60 seats, which (equally) comes out to about approx. 8.6 seats. Therefore, the MCs of party B now have a lower say in the Cosa, also, it may increase the diversity in Party B but it also increases the chance of somebody disagreeing with something the party believes in. Party B, is in turn, weaker in the Cosa for the remainder of the Clark. So the answer is yes and no, come the next election, Party B could very well gain more seats with the added person (assuming only the 12 of them vote, trying to keep the numbers simple here) thus leading to the party becoming bigger. Now if that did happen, but an MC switches “mid term” again, say from B to A, it would, once again, weaken Party A. It goes either way here. The long term, yes, it *may* very well strengthen the party you joined, but in the short term, it could very well strengthen the party you leave. It is my memory of RUMP history that Hooligan went to step down as party leader and the party (if I remember correctly) told him to stay, demanded him to stay. That is, IMO, a de facto election. Hooly, if I’m correct, founded the RUMP, defaulted into being party leader (although I’m not sure about this, so you may have a point here) but I do stand by my statement that when the party demanded Hooly stay, it was a de facto, albeit not very good type, election. I agree with this 100%. And again, I was using a “worst” case scenario. That being said, we’re running the risk of having a lot of more “duplicate” parties also. With the current parties, I can’t tell. But just as I have been part of parties that shocked me with the paths they took, I am no fortune teller. I can only present what may happen, not definitively say “the Progressive Party will take this road and do this 1 week, 1 month, 1 year down the line. I disagree Senator, I believe the current system we have works just fine. There is no reason to fix it. Just as doomsday scenarios were presented by the other side (the great number of people leaving parties) was presented, I was arguing that an even worse situation may occur as it opens the doors for greater abuse by parties if they so choose. That can be said by either side. As I have stated previously, my scenario was countering the scenario presented. Both arguments could fall under your hyperbole designation. No, but it is also possible for a party to change their polices whenever they see fit. Perhaps someone who is a new citizen would join a party without knowing about these policies. Perhaps they initiated them after an election. It’s all speculation, Senator. And yet, now you present a Strawman argument. You’re saying these situations are highly unlikely, yet they aren’t impossible. Just as it is unlikely people join parties for the sole purpose to vote against party platform and/or leave the party with the seats. What is being forgotten is that new issues come up after election time. What is also being forgotten is MCs also vote for parties. The current system does enforce the will of the people, but it also keeps the parties responsible for whom they assign seats, makes the party only give seats to MCs they can trust. I think the parties should be responsible for whom they assign seats. If they parties make a mistake and assign someone seats who is irresponsible, the party should suffer the consequences. The party (and other parties) know for next term who these individuals are. And if they want to vote for a party that says anyone with blond hair needs to use separate bathrooms, they can do that also. Mob rule isn’t always the best rule. Under the current system, yes. There is no need for one man parties. Under the proposed system, the need may arise. But we aren’t a democracy dear Senator. The proposed system opens the doors for potential of greater abuse. I find it hard to believe that MCs would want to accept a system that could potentially limit how they will vote. But I ask you, what would be the point in assign seats. Why not just let the party block vote. That would be the only way to ensure that the people’s interest and beliefs in voting for a party are truly served. Senator, why wasn’t this an issue when some Clippers left the CLP a few Clarks ago thus making the RUMP the majority party not based on the people’s votes? I am not trying to put the spotlight on you, but it seems it was okay then but not okay now.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 9, 2008 6:27:29 GMT -6
I disagree Senator. You’re trying to create more diversity for ONE aspect of party policy, not diversity based on actual issues. It seems, Senator, and I may be mistaken, what you’re claiming would happen is more parties would pop up with pretty much identical issues, but slight variations on policy. I think that may happen. We may see one or two new parties, I believe. But the chain of events seems predisposed against more than that. Consider: party policy is generally decided by the most active members of a party. Those active members are almost universally MCs, unless they hold one of the comparably rare Senate seats or seats in the judiciary. And it does not seem terribly likely that these individuals will agree to total curtailment of their free will. I do think it possible, however, that some individuals might wish to create a party that aims to ensure its agenda. For example, someone might wish to create an LGBT party to fight for LGBT rights and issues. Not that LGBT rights are under threat, now, of course: it's an example. This party might wish to give the pledge: "If you give us your vote, you can be certain its representation in the Cosa will vote for LGBT issues." And that party may make it policy that any issue of LGBT is a mandatory support vote among its MCs, according to some internal process they would be free to choose. Right now, that's not possible. Any LGBT party would only be able to say, "If you give us your vote, we will really try hard to pick our MCs perfectly, and not give any to fractious individuals who might take your vote elsewhere and vote against LGBT issues." Such a party, like every other party, would not even have the option of teeth. And of course, perhaps LGBT issues become a huge issue in Talossa. And there's enough political room for a different LGBT party to spring up. And maybe this one wants to pledge that its MCs will always vote their consciences with wisdom and discrimination, and won't face consequences for doing so. Such a pledge is useless: no one ever faces consequences until seven months later. Diversity. And I never said EVERY party would stifle them, I am, as I have previously said, merely pointing out the higher degree of abuse that is possible than what is now. You have repeatedly offered the scenario wherein you would be "forced" to go against your conscience. I was pointing out how that was absurd, unless you chose such a path. The potential for a "higher degree of abuse" comes part and parcel with the mechanism for solving any abuse. I hardly believe my arguments fall under your use of “straw man.” I am not misrepresenting what you believe, I merely took what was said by your side of the argument and presented an extreme scenario, not unlike the extreme scenario that was being presented by your side, not necessarily you. I am not misrepresenting your views, I’m commenting on what they might lead to. Sigh. Okay. Let me edit my sentence, so maybe you will respond to the content, S:reu MC: Actually, the logical thing in your argument would be to create or join Party C, which almost certainly would have sprung up in competition with Party A. We have fiercely independent people in our nation, and MCs are an even more independent breed. Do you think many MCs in Party A are going to happily go along with it? IS it not more likely - even almost certain - that many or most of the MCs and party members are going to instead join a new party, that represents all of their beliefs? Parties shouldn’t balance popular opinion, that is up to the government to do. The party is an extension of a group of like minded individuals who share common belief(s) and believe they have the best way to direct the government. What you’re proposing, I believe, lessens democracy, it increases the chance of democracy being eroded. I have demonstrated this by my extreme scenario. This kind of scenario, however, is almost impossible under the current system. How can an act that lowers the vote of people in favour of block voting be considered an increase to the democratic process? Oh, I beg to differ. Every party already balances popular opinion to achieve a consensus on its views. As you say, they share common beliefs. But their beliefs are not universally unanimous. We all disagree about some things. They just tend to agree on many things and a general approach. The same thing will occur under the reform, but with wider options to better serve the voters. That is the intent of the Cosa, after all: to represent the will of the voters. I am curious as to how this reform will "lower the vote of people." The MCs are people, but they're not the people. Allowing parties to choose to hold them accountable to the will of the people is hardly a bad thing, in my view. Yes and no Senator. Parties are only stronger with more people in them if it is equal to their say in the Cosa. Party A has 60 seats, with 6 MCs, 10 seats a person. Party B has 60 seats, with 6 MCs, 10 seats a person. An MC is “removed” from his post for disagreeing with party A, perhaps publicly or perhaps privately, but the end result is their seats are removed. They join up with Party B. The seats are reallocated to the 5 remaining MCs of Party A, thus leading to 12 seats per MC. Giving each MC in Party A a greater voice in the Cosa. Party B decides they really like this person and assigns him seats in their party, so now there are 7 MCs diving up 60 seats, which (equally) comes out to about approx. 8.6 seats. Therefore, the MCs of party B now have a lower say in the Cosa, also, it may increase the diversity in Party B but it also increases the chance of somebody disagreeing with something the party believes in. Party B, is in turn, weaker in the Cosa for the remainder of the Clark. So the answer is yes and no, come the next election, Party B could very well gain more seats with the added person (assuming only the 12 of them vote, trying to keep the numbers simple here) thus leading to the party becoming bigger. Now if that did happen, but an MC switches “mid term” again, say from B to A, it would, once again, weaken Party A. It goes either way here. The long term, yes, it *may* very well strengthen the party you joined, but in the short term, it could very well strengthen the party you leave. I suppose that is true, yes. It's actually a very good point. I do not actually consider it a bad thing that an MC is not allowed to personally and unilaterally decide to make one party stronger and one party weaker. In the unreformed system, that is what occurs. If Party LGBT gets ten seats, and Party TBGL (their dire enemy) gets two seats, assigned exactly according to the proportion of votes they each received from the voters, why should a fractious member of LGBT be allowed to change his mind and join TBGL, and bring eight seats with him? That reverses their positions, in defiance of what the people actually wanted. It is my memory of RUMP history that Hooligan went to step down as party leader and the party (if I remember correctly) told him to stay, demanded him to stay. That is, IMO, a de facto election. Hooly, if I’m correct, founded the RUMP, defaulted into being party leader (although I’m not sure about this, so you may have a point here) but I do stand by my statement that when the party demanded Hooly stay, it was a de facto, albeit not very good type, election. That's swell. But it's hardly relevant. The point was that these are not the over-ridingly important issues you seem to think they are. This reform is important, sure, but it is not going to become the single issue voting choice, dominant in the polls. The LRT has/had a charter and a process and voting and whatnot; the RUMP does not. Yet it was not even whispered about. I kind of doubt this reform will bring shouting matches, either. I agree with this 100%. And again, I was using a “worst” case scenario. That being said, we’re running the risk of having a lot of more “duplicate” parties also. With the current parties, I can’t tell. But just as I have been part of parties that shocked me with the paths they took, I am no fortune teller. I can only present what may happen, not definitively say “the Progressive Party will take this road and do this 1 week, 1 month, 1 year down the line. Interesting. So you are comfortable saying that the PP may go either way on this under the potential reform? I am surprised, I would have thought you would say, "They will choose to assign permanent seats, or I will leave." What about the PP makes you think they may decide on absolute oversight? I disagree Senator, I believe the current system we have works just fine. There is no reason to fix it. Just as doomsday scenarios were presented by the other side (the great number of people leaving parties) was presented, I was arguing that an even worse situation may occur as it opens the doors for greater abuse by parties if they so choose. I'm not sure pointing out the current situation counts as a "doomsday scenario." It is not a "scenario" that the RUMP won 132 seats according to the will of the people, but only has 100 seats, is it? What exactly is "doomsday" about the reality of the situation? Your own doomsday scenario is fallacious, as I have pointed out. Even if every party decided on absolute oversight, it would merely result in some more competing parties. That might be annoying, but it's hardly nation-threatening. I'd actually say that was amusingly mild for a "doomsday scenario." I wish all worst-case possibilities were so light. No, but it is also possible for a party to change their polices whenever they see fit. Perhaps someone who is a new citizen would join a party without knowing about these policies. Perhaps they initiated them after an election. It’s all speculation, Senator. Perhaps someone will join a party that will kill their dog. If you're going to speculate, we can just go nuts with it. It will be fun. But back in reality, we have a current problem. Without receiving a single vote, some parties have Cosa seats. For a legislative house that is supposed to directly represent the proportional support of the democratic votes of the people, that seems awfully poor to me. If we're going to allow MCs to decide which parties get votes, I may have to resign my chair and become an MC, instead. I certainly don't get that privilege. And yet, now you present a Strawman argument. You’re saying these situations are highly unlikely, yet they aren’t impossible. Just as it is unlikely people join parties for the sole purpose to vote against party platform and/or leave the party with the seats. You're right, my scenario was absurdly unlikely. But it doesn't really seem unlikely to look at reality and see the perversion of the people's will. The LRT won 33 seats according to the votes of the sovereign people of Talossa. They now have 8. Who took away their seats? Not the people, but some MCs who decided the people were wrong and that a different party would have been a better choice for them. That seems something that should be fixed, to me. What is being forgotten is that new issues come up after election time. What is also being forgotten is MCs also vote for parties. The current system does enforce the will of the people, but it also keeps the parties responsible for whom they assign seats, makes the party only give seats to MCs they can trust. It seems to me a little burdensome to make parties try to decide who will follow their rules for seven months, and abide by that decision with zero recourse thereafter. We should give parties the tools to fix things midstream, in case that's when there's a leak. We don't stand on the shore and tell them they should have built the boat better. People are imperfect, sometimes there's a rotten board no one sees. And if they want to vote for a party that says anyone with blond hair needs to use separate bathrooms, they can do that also. Mob rule isn’t always the best rule. ...what? Yes, if Talossans decide they want to vote for that party, I think they should be allowed to. Such a party would never get that legislation past the Cort, but I am just not comfortable with MCs getting to decide whether or not the democratic "mob" is correct. It might be unfortunate if the people make a decision to support a party you don't like as an MC. But Talossa is a democratic nation, so MCs don't get to overrule that "mob," as you bizarrely refer to it. This is a country where the people, not the Cosa, is sovereign. The Cosa represents the will of the people, not of MCs. If you don't like that, then... well, I don't know what to think. Under the current system, yes. There is no need for one man parties. Under the proposed system, the need may arise. Please explain this statement, since it doesn't make any sense to me. "The need may arise" under the current system just as much under the reformed one, inasmuch as I can see. If you insist on "perfect agreement" with all issues in your party, then even under the current system you "need" to create your own party. That's just how parties work. They're representations of aggregate will, not individual will. But we aren’t a democracy dear Senator. The proposed system opens the doors for potential of greater abuse. I find it hard to believe that MCs would want to accept a system that could potentially limit how they will vote. We're not a democracy? So that Organic stuff about "The nation democratically grants the King and his successors certain Royal Powers," and "The Cosâ is the national legislative assembly and is elected by universal popular vote by all adult citizens" and other places where it mentions voting... what is that? Unless you meant technically. In that case, why, yes, we are a "constitutional hereditary monarchy" with democratically elected representatives (a republic). I actually do not find it hard to believe at all that MCs would willingly support a reform to the system. Some MCs may be unwilling to open up a possibility that they won't have unilateral authority to defy the voters, but I think many actually take their office and obligation quite seriously. To use MC Gavaritch as a respected example, he supported this legislation, and when he began to lean towards changing his mind, he didn't say, "I want to be sure I will keep my power in a term." He said he was worried about abuse. We have wonderful citizens in our nation, and even more wonderful MCs on the whole. I have every confidence that this reform, properly phrased and argued for, will pass. The Cosâ is the national legislative assembly and is elected by universal popular vote by all adult citizensBut I ask you, what would be the point in assign seats. Why not just let the party block vote. That would be the only way to ensure that the people’s interest and beliefs in voting for a party are truly served. I didn't think of it. It took the insight of others to witness the problem and realize a solution. To be quite frank, I think I just am not smart enough. I'm just an active guy who happened to be in the right place to get into this office, and who does his best. And luckily, I think I am smart enough to see that this reform - while not my idea - is a brilliant solution and will help express the will of the people. I realize that I personally may not pass muster, but if that is the case then I trust the good sense of the people of my province to get rid of me.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 9, 2008 9:33:00 GMT -6
I would say there were numerous comments made by those who knew of the LRT's charter - including you, Senator. If it had been effective in the ways it set out to be, I suspect the comments would have been a lot more...political (and they were somewhat political to begin with).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2008 9:47:58 GMT -6
There really isn't any point in responding to this Senator. I'm not ceding any points. But we're going to keep going around in circles. I'm done with this argument. Although the GLBT argument that you presented was a bit uncalled for, giving our contentious history on it.
If the author ever decides to clark it (which I don't see why they didn't) we'll vote on it. Until then, it's an issue that has been discussed way too much.
As far as your comment about the PP and my stance, the PP knows my stance. They know full well if they did initiate such a policy, it is rather evident. I don't know which way the PP will go on this issue, but if they don't know where I stand, that's a problem, so you're point is really moot.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 9, 2008 10:10:03 GMT -6
I would say there were numerous comments made by those who knew of the LRT's charter - including you, Senator. If it had been effective in the ways it set out to be, I suspect the comments would have been a lot more...political (and they were somewhat political to begin with). But surely you agree it was nothing like a major issue, yes? My point is that I doubt this will be a major issue, as well. I suspect most (if not all) parties will adopt a policy of retaining seats if MCs leave and little to no oversight, in fact, so I don't think it will be a particular bone of contention. But the freedom will be there. There really isn't any point in responding to this Senator. I'm not ceding any points. But we're going to keep going around in circles. I'm done with this argument. That is unfortunate, but not unexpected. Although the GLBT argument that you presented was a bit uncalled for, giving our contentious history on it. It was a deliberate example of one of the issues of which I know you are enamored, used to point out one of the many possible benefits of the reform. If the author ever decides to clark it (which I don't see why they didn't) we'll vote on it. Until then, it's an issue that has been discussed way too much. I am afraid I actually disagree. I honestly am not sure there is a point of "too much" discussion on such a major bill. I think it will have numerous benefits, but it cannot be doubted it is a major change. As far as your comment about the PP and my stance, the PP knows my stance. They know full well if they did initiate such a policy, it is rather evident. I don't know which way the PP will go on this issue, but if they don't know where I stand, that's a problem, so you're point is really moot. I was just curious about what you said about the PP, is all. From everything I know about the PP, I would have guessed they would tend towards your own point of view. It's not important at all. Thank you for your contributions, MC. Let me sum up my views, then, to see if anyone else has any concerns or ideas about these reforms. I hope anyone who disagrees or has further doubts will speak up. - As it stands, MCs are able to directly ignore the mandate of the people with regards to not just issues, but actual representation. Any MC can decide to just take a portion of the vote and give it to another party, and the party that merited those seats - that was assigned them by democratic vote - has no recourse. This is a problem that must be fixed.
- Further, parties are toothless. A party must select its MCs during the first couple of weeks of the term, and are forced to abide by that decision all term, again with no recourse to otherwise. Regardless of the party's own rules or wishes, they as a party cannot take seats away from an MC, no matter how that MC votes or acts. Accordingly, during each term the parties are merely rough groups of people, rather than real parties who might be able to effect any kind of legislative agenda.
- This reform will unshackle parties. Each party would have the option of adopting rules to retain their democratically assigned seats and engage in some vote oversight. They would not be mandated to do so, and indeed there is much to suggest that in the latter any oversight would be slim to none. But it will provide a new dimension and activity in our political arena, and will allow parties to present actual enforceable promises.
- The worst-case scenario is that every current party tries to adopt absolute oversight - no contrary voting at all. This absurdly unlikely scenario is still not bad at all in perspective, since this will only result in the death of these parties (rightly so!) and creation of new parties. We should wish for such mild worst-case scenarios with every new law!
- So there will be numerous benefits, with little risk of abuse. This reform is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2008 11:12:18 GMT -6
I, too, shall sum my views. - MCs are also voters, their views shouldn't be ignored.
- Parties entrust MCs with seats. Parties, themselves, should be held responsible for their actions. This bill removes a party's liability.
- This bill potentially removes the free thought of MCs. By allowing parties to issue mandates that MCs must vote a certain way (if the party so wishes to take that course), what could otherwise go against a MCs conscience and perhaps was not an issue with the MC joined the party and was given seats, could very well force MCs to vote against what they believe in. As it stands now, the Party should know who their MCs are and what they believe in and assign seats accordingly.
- It is easy to say "this is unlikely." But people tend to abuse power if it is handed to them. The potential for abuse under the proposed legislation exceeds that of the abuse that is possible now.
- The current party structure is designed so the parties must listen to BOTH the people and the MCs. The proposed legislation removes the need for the party to truely listen to their MCs.
- The proposed legislation hightens the chance of new parties popping up with identical stances on issues but differeing policies. This isn't necessarly good for the nation.
- While the parties *should* have some teeth, the teeth they have should not be to limit the free thought and free voting of MCs.
- We shouldn't rush into unschakling parties. Other issues should be presented, other ideas brought forth, and more discussion on various ways to improve the integrity of the party while maintaining the independence of a MC. More compromise is necessary, not blindly changing a system that is, otherwise, unbroken.
- So while there are benefits, the chances for abuse are great. I firmly believe these benefits are greatly outweighed by the chance for abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 9, 2008 11:49:11 GMT -6
The PP's stance as far as the Bill and the Amendment on this topic is simple: 100% against any mandated change at OrgLaw level; cautious but less determinedly against devolving the responsibility to the party. We would not, if Jorge's Amendment went through, adopt a system of forcing MC's to give up their seats - but certainly some serious discussions must be had pre-election as to how oversight might be maintained.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2008 9:20:54 GMT -6
I just want to make a correction, technically the PP does not hold any seats in the Cosa.
|
|