Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 7, 2008 15:20:27 GMT -6
The False Friends Amendment
WHEREAS it is necessary to put an end to political mess;
WHEREAS it is necessary to preserve each party’s rights;
WHEREAS I have no time for too many “whereases”,
I hereby propose that the Organic Law, Article VIII, Section 4 be changed as follows:
Current text: “Each person holding a seat is a correspondent representative known as a "Member of the Cosâ" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office or dies. Any seats left unassigned at the end of the first Clark of the government are considered vacant.”
New text: “Each person holding a seat is a correspondent representative known as a "Member of the Cosâ" (MC). An MC automatically vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or dies. MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by withdrawal of their mandate by their party as permitted by law and by party regulation. It is up to the parties: a) to decide whether to let an MC take his seats with him or not in case he leaves the party; b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform. Any seats left unassigned at the end of the first Clark of the government are considered vacant and shall be filled by the King.”
THEREFORE the Ziu hereby approves this amendment and transmits it to the people for ratification.
Uréu q'estadra sa
Xhorxh Asmour [MC,CCCP]
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2008 16:30:06 GMT -6
Nope. I'm voting against this.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jul 7, 2008 19:21:46 GMT -6
I see both sides equally here, so I will have to abstain.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 8, 2008 1:56:34 GMT -6
This bill seems, if I understand correctly, to offer a different solution to the same problem as the currently-proposed "The Move Your Feet, Lose Your Seat Act," does it not? It would seem clunky to try to continue the current discussion on two different threads. I wonder if you would mind posting the text of this onto that thread, so as to keep the discussion coherent for the time being?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Fenton on Jul 8, 2008 4:07:48 GMT -6
I think this is a better one though.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 8, 2008 6:24:58 GMT -6
New text: It is up to the parties: a) to decide whether to let an MC take his seats with him or not in case he leaves the party; b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform.” I agree with point a 100 percent, however, I'm a bit iffy with point b. It is, of course, the party's decision in the end, but after being caught up in a whirlwind of politics surrounding "voting against the party line" (which began the LRT rift) I have to say that that seems entirely unfair. In a true democratic process, each individual is entitled to vote how he or she desires, not how his or her party leaders demand them. With the threat of seat removal, people will be even less inclined to speak their mind, and instead, Talossa will be caught up in the firm grasp of partisanship with "block party votes." The RUMP or the Progressives or the CCCP aren't just one generic entity- each is made up of individuals who think and feel in different ways. If you take the ablility to decide for oneself away (with an empowering clause of seat removal), you take away the true democratic process. I must say, in this particular form, unless this clause is explained, I must abstain from voting.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 8, 2008 9:21:30 GMT -6
The text says:
"b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform."
That doesn't mean you will be kept from voting following your conscience, but if you have joined the party and agreed with the party's platform, you must accordingly vote for the KEY LEGISLATION it calls for. You may, however, vote totally according to your conscience on matters that are not specifically mentioned there as being inherent to the party line.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 8, 2008 9:42:12 GMT -6
I wonder if you would mind posting the text of this onto that thread, so as to keep the discussion coherent for the time being? With pleasure!
|
|
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 Jul 8, 2008 16:50:11 GMT -6
New text: It is up to the parties: a) to decide whether to let an MC take his seats with him or not in case he leaves the party; b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform.” I agree with point a 100 percent, however, I'm a bit iffy with point b. It is, of course, the party's decision in the end, but after being caught up in a whirlwind of politics surrounding "voting against the party line" (which began the LRT rift) I have to say that that seems entirely unfair. One possibility is to just remove the sentence you quoted from the proposal. Then we'd be left with: "MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by withdrawal of their mandate by their party as permitted by law and by party regulation." Or rephrase that sentence as: "MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by their party in accordance with party regulations and as permitted by statute." Either way, the Ziu would be able to pass a law regulating parties, and parties would be able to control the seats of their members to the extent permitted by that law. The law might say that parties can only take back seats if the member leaves the party, or if the member leaves the party during the first x months of the Cosa term, or it might go beyond party-switching and say that parties can (if they choose to so provide in their internal rules) enforce party discipline by taking Cosa seats away from their members who reject the party line. The point being that these things don't have to be spelled out in great detail in the OrgLaw, the Ziu and the parties could experiment with what works best. I'm ambivalent about this issue, just pointing out a course of action that would seem to permit maximum flexibility.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jul 8, 2008 16:55:25 GMT -6
I agree with point a 100 percent, however, I'm a bit iffy with point b. It is, of course, the party's decision in the end, but after being caught up in a whirlwind of politics surrounding "voting against the party line" (which began the LRT rift) I have to say that that seems entirely unfair. One possibility is to just remove the sentence you quoted from the proposal. Then we'd be left with: "MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by withdrawal of their mandate by their party as permitted by law and by party regulation." Or rephrase that sentence as: " MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by their party in accordance with party regulations and as permitted by statute." Either way, the Ziu would be able to pass a law regulating parties, and parties would be able to control the seats of their members to the extent permitted by that law. The law might say that parties can only take back seats if the member leaves the party, or if the member leaves the party during the first x months of the Cosa term, or it might go beyond party-switching and say that parties can (if they choose to so provide in their internal rules) enforce party discipline by taking Cosa seats away from their members who reject the party line. The point being that these things don't have to be spelled out in great detail in the OrgLaw, the Ziu and the parties could experiment with what works best. I'm ambivalent about this issue, just pointing out a course of action that would seem to permit maximum flexibility. I'd support the rephrased sentence.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 8, 2008 20:30:38 GMT -6
As do I.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 9, 2008 9:06:32 GMT -6
Sir Cresti's suggestion sounds really good, so let's reword the amendment (changes in boldface):
The False Friends Amendment
WHEREAS it is necessary to put an end to political mess;
WHEREAS it is necessary to preserve each party’s rights;
WHEREAS I have no time for too many “whereases”,
I hereby propose that the Organic Law, Article VIII, Section 4 be changed as follows:
Current text: “Each person holding a seat is a correspondent representative known as a "Member of the Cosâ" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office or dies. Any seats left unassigned at the end of the first Clark of the government are considered vacant.”
New text: "Each person holding a seat is a correspondent representative known as a "Member of the Cosâ" (MC). An MC automatically vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or dies. MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by withdrawal of their mandate by their party as permitted by law and by party regulation. It is up to the parties: a) to decide whether to let an MC take his seats with him or not in case he leaves the party; b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform. Any seats left unassigned at the end of the first Clark of the government are considered vacant and shall be filled by the King."
THEREFORE the Ziu hereby approves this amendment and transmits it to the people for ratification.
Uréu q'estadra sa
Xhorxh Asmour [MC,CCCP]
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 9, 2008 9:18:54 GMT -6
As I told Mick Preston yesterday in a GoogleTalk conversation, I'm working on the draft of a Talossan Parties' Code that would establish clear rules about how the parties will function and clearly define (and limit) the extent of their powers. It will be posted on Witt for discussion early next week at the latest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 16:45:18 GMT -6
I'm confused here, I thought it was the parties job to legislate government based on the voice of the people, not the government's job to legislate parties...
|
|
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 Jul 9, 2008 16:52:46 GMT -6
I'm confused here, I thought it was the parties job to legislate government based on the voice of the people, not the government's job to legislate parties... What do you call the rule against parties preventing their members from taking Cosa seats with them?
|
|