|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2008 18:50:06 GMT -6
Let's use a better example, what if someone proposes legislation to make Ham the national meat of talossa, and Party A endorses this and makes it mandatory for everyone to vote. But, there is an orthodox Jew who keeps kosher is in that party, they have to vote to make something a national food that is otherwise viewed as sinful to eat... so they would be penalized for going against their religion... You accuse Cjara of denying political parties the right to defend their seats, why are you denying the free thought of MCs and the right to vote their conscience? That is a better example. In no way ridiculous. But let's say that this situation happens. Let's say the Jew votes against the legislation, and let's say that the brain-dead party strips said MC of their seats. I could make a pretty convincing argument that said party leadership should be charged with violating the third covenant. And I haven't been to law school either. One more time, the goal is NOT to restrict MCs from free thought and voting their conscience. The goal is to prevent those free thinking, conscientious MCs from redistributing the percentage of seats within the Cosa by leaving the party that they claimed to support when asking for seats and then decide that they don't really like that party. Right now, if an MC feels betrayed by their party and that their party no longer represents them, the MC is the only one right now that can decide to keep or surrender the seats. This law would let the party, who owns those seats as of the most recent election, weigh in on the matter. Now before we again go over the possibility of party corruption, abuse of power, whatever phrase of the day we want to use, parties would have to publish their policy of leaving with seats, or voting the party line, etc. If a prospective MC doesn't like the policy, DON'T JOIN THE PARTY! One of two things will happen to a party that has an extreme voting policy: 1. The party shrivels and die, as no MC that was concerned with their conscience joined that party in the first place. That party probably also doesn't do so hot in the election. 2. The party realizes that they're dying and relaxes their policy. Those with a conscience agree with the party and its policies and joins. The party flourishes, and the peasants rejoice. Ah Bard, there are two debates going on here. i don't know exactly what you guys want anymore. Do you just want people to lose their seats if they leave the party or do you want to give the party the right to remove seats whenever the party deems it necessary. To answer Tims post, there may be one issue that is against your beliefs but you find everything else falls in line with the party. Party 1 believes in ABCD Party 2 believes in EFGH Each letter being the opposite of the one above/below it. You believe in ABGD, so you vote along party lines ABD but vote G because it would otherwise go against your conscience. In simple math, that is 25% you don't agree with (keeping it simple) and there is no other party you have stronger political views/ties to, why should you be penalized? You may not intend it to go against free thought, but that is entirely what it is doing. It is leaving the possibility for people to abuse the system to a greater extent than there is now. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 20, 2008 19:35:28 GMT -6
Ah Bard, there are two debates going on here. i don't know exactly what you guys want anymore. Do you just want people to lose their seats if they leave the party or do you want to give the party the right to remove seats whenever the party deems it necessary. To answer Tims post, there may be one issue that is against your beliefs but you find everything else falls in line with the party. Party 1 believes in ABCD Party 2 believes in EFGH Each letter being the opposite of the one above/below it. You believe in ABGD, so you vote along party lines ABD but vote G because it would otherwise go against your conscience. In simple math, that is 25% you don't agree with (keeping it simple) and there is no other party you have stronger political views/ties to, why should you be penalized? You may not intend it to go against free thought, but that is entirely what it is doing. It is leaving the possibility for people to abuse the system to a greater extent than there is now. I and most other reformers hold (although are arriving there with slightly different legislation) the notion that parties should be able to make rules on that as they wish. If they make AB their party line, and make rules saying that you cannot vote against AB no matter what, they should be permitted to do so. Then voters can vote for the AB Party with confidence that they will always support AB. And the AB Party should be given latitude to enforce that mandate, so that if their MCs vote against AB, then those MCs lose their seats according to the party rules. We want to give parties teeth. If they bite, we trust that Talossans are smart enough to decide whether or not they want to vote for a biter. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 7:26:54 GMT -6
Ah Bard, there are two debates going on here. i don't know exactly what you guys want anymore. Do you just want people to lose their seats if they leave the party or do you want to give the party the right to remove seats whenever the party deems it necessary. To answer Tims post, there may be one issue that is against your beliefs but you find everything else falls in line with the party. Party 1 believes in ABCD Party 2 believes in EFGH Each letter being the opposite of the one above/below it. You believe in ABGD, so you vote along party lines ABD but vote G because it would otherwise go against your conscience. In simple math, that is 25% you don't agree with (keeping it simple) and there is no other party you have stronger political views/ties to, why should you be penalized? You may not intend it to go against free thought, but that is entirely what it is doing. It is leaving the possibility for people to abuse the system to a greater extent than there is now. I and most other reformers hold (although are arriving there with slightly different legislation) the notion that parties should be able to make rules on that as they wish. If they make AB their party line, and make rules saying that you cannot vote against AB no matter what, they should be permitted to do so. Then voters can vote for the AB Party with confidence that they will always support AB. And the AB Party should be given latitude to enforce that mandate, so that if their MCs vote against AB, then those MCs lose their seats according to the party rules. We want to give parties teeth. If they bite, we trust that Talossans are smart enough to decide whether or not they want to vote for a biter. AD, what is the point of MCs then? Why not just assign the seats to the party and let the party vote, why even bother having to let anyone within the party be assigned seats. That is, after all, what is being proposed: to create an illusion. Party 1: Mandatory Votes ABCD Party 2: Mandatory Votes EFGH You support ABGD, you are a member of Party 1. You are totally against EFCH, why should you be penalized for being against only a fraction of the party, when everything else you have believe in falls perfectly in line with the party? 75% of you is party 1, 25% of you is party 2. If the party says "you must vote a certain way", you must vote that way, abstaining wouldn't be an option because you would be voting against the bill. Like I said, we have a system which has potential for abuse, all systems do. But the "reformers," as you have so eloquently dubbed yourselves, wish to replace it with a system that has GREATER potential for abuse, and more chance of it happening. You're saying: if you don't like your party, wait till the Clark is over and switch. I'm saying, if a member of the MC joins a party, gets assigned seats, then switches parties at the beginning or abuses his power, the parties and people will know not to give that person seats. The current system puts trust in the MCs to vote but respect their thinking, the system you're proposing holds a child's hand. You, of all people, a self proclaimed free-thinker, should be able to see the problem with this. |
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 21, 2008 8:49:29 GMT -6
We want to give parties teeth. If they bite, we trust that Talossans are smart enough to decide whether or not they want to vote for a biter. Well said! United we have more power and can do much more than by ourselves. But everything in a democratic society must be negotiated and follow rules. Most of times there must be a compromise for things to work out fine. A party is a group of people supposed to think in more or less the same direction and have common goals, so you must think carefully before making the decision to join party A, B or C. As things are going now, people can, in the name of free thinking, be unfaithful to their parties whenever they like and easily get away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 9:09:25 GMT -6
We want to give parties teeth. If they bite, we trust that Talossans are smart enough to decide whether or not they want to vote for a biter. Well said! United we have more power and can do much more than by ourselves. But everything in a democratic society must be negotiated and follow rules. Most of times there must be a compromise for things to work out fine. A party is a group of people supposed to think in more or less the same direction and have common goals, so you must think carefully before making the decision to join party A, B or C. As things are going now, people can, in the name of free thinking, be unfaithful to their parties whenever they like and easily get away with it. So, in the name of party security, we should do away with democracy and favor a party style oligarchy? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 9:16:04 GMT -6
I will say it again. This changes nothing, this does not increase the potential for abuse.
If you consistently vote against the party line under today's system, you will lose your seats. Simply put, the party can just not assign seats to you at the next election. This simply allows parties the do the same exact thing, only mid-term.
Second, this is not a democracy. I'm not sure where you studied political systems that you think we need to be a perfect Greek Democracy. If you are so darn concerned about the rights of the individuals, then isn't it denying individuals their rights by voting for parties instead of individuals?
After all, V, if you HAVE to join a party that believes ABCD and you believe XYZ but you HAVE to join to get seats, isn't that forcing you to betray your conscience?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 9:39:05 GMT -6
The whining and the crying about how your party hurt your feelings and the big bad political monster is going to eat us all up and take away our democracy. I will say it again. This changes nothing, this does not increase the potential for abuse. If you consistently vote against the party line under today's system, you will lose your seats. Simply put, the party can just not assign seats to you at the next election. This simply allows parties the do the same exact thing, only mid-term. Second, this is not a democracy. I'm not sure where you studied political systems that you think we need to be a perfect Greek Democracy. If you are so darn concerned about the rights of the individuals, then isn't it denying individuals their rights by voting for parties instead of individuals? After all, V, if you HAVE to join a party that believes ABCD and you believe XYZ but you HAVE to join to get seats, isn't that forcing you to betray your conscience? Wow, talk about your condescending bullcrap. I have kept my cool throughout this entire debate while having to deal with insults. If this is how you wish to engage this debate, fine. You have offered nothing substantial but excuses to strip MCs of the right to think and vote how they feel is right. You are basically saying the MC, not the party, should be responsible for the Party's bad decision making. Where was I whining that my party hurt my feelings? Show me the exact post with timestamp. Your entire argument is based on this great fantasy that people sit in their room late at night and devise evil plans to con party leaders into assigning seats just to jump ship and bring them somewhere else. Or better yet, constantly vote against party lines. Others on your side are saying that there is a high frequency of new parties forming over minor issues. I'm asking the questions that are begging to be asked: Who are these people that sit up late in their rooms and what parties formed over what minor issues? Enlighten us all!!! If you constantly vote against your party line YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR ANOTHER PARTY. It's that simple. Just like if you're constantly jumping ship, chances are, no party is going to give you seats. But what you're saying is that the party will be able to strip you of your seats as it sees fit. So if you do usually vote for party lines, and there is something you vote against, you must walk on egg shells, because god for bid it's a mandatory vote and OMG, YOU LOSE YOUR SEATS, EVEN THOUGH YOU VOTED 95% OF THE PARTY LINE. Can you not see that has a GREATER POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE? Or do you choose to ignore that because it is inconvenient? It's as if you want the party to be mom and dad and hold our damn hands as we walk down the street. Remind me, was I the first to use the word democracy or refer to a democratic style system? hmmm. Lets scroll through the page, oh there it is XHORXH BROUGHT IT UP. perhaps you should be asking him this question? I never claimed that we have a perfect Greek democracy. You're now the 2nd person on your side to put words in my mouth, are your arguments not strong enough that you must resort to this kind of debating style? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 10:02:01 GMT -6
I'm not engaging anything, because I am done with this debate.
You fine it unlikely that MCs are "conspiring" against the political parties but have no problem believing that the political parties will conspire against the MCs. This is getting us absolutely nowhere, let's just take it to the ballot. My response to your "potential for abuse" is that if a party is abusing power and wantonly stripping MCs of authority, those displaced MCs will join another party and come next GE, the offending party will likely be with little or no seats anyway.
I am also willing to admit that my previous opening statement was out of line. It has been removed and I apologize for taking a political debate to that level, we don't need to fight like cats just because we disagree on a political platform.
Indeed, we have both presented arguments, neither to the satisfaction of the other person, and I think we should just call this a stalemate and see where the election takes it.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 21, 2008 10:14:33 GMT -6
All this never-ending blah-blah-blah is making me sick.
Enough of verbosity and meandering, folks!
Let our wise citizens decide.
|
|
Cjara B
Citizen since 5-3-2007
Citizen of Talossa, and now Florencia
Posts: 368
|
Post by Cjara B on Jul 21, 2008 11:36:45 GMT -6
AD, what is the point of MCs then? Why not just assign the seats to the party and let the party vote, why even bother having to let anyone within the party be assigned seats. That is, after all, what is being proposed: to create an illusion. Party 1: Mandatory Votes ABCD Party 2: Mandatory Votes EFGH You support ABGD, you are a member of Party 1. You are totally against EFCH, why should you be penalized for being against only a fraction of the party, when everything else you have believe in falls perfectly in line with the party? 75% of you is party 1, 25% of you is party 2. If the party says "you must vote a certain way", you must vote that way, abstaining wouldn't be an option because you would be voting against the bill. Like I said, we have a system which has potential for abuse, all systems do. But the "reformers," as you have so eloquently dubbed yourselves, wish to replace it with a system that has GREATER potential for abuse, and more chance of it happening. You're saying: if you don't like your party, wait till the Clark is over and switch. I'm saying, if a member of the MC joins a party, gets assigned seats, then switches parties at the beginning or abuses his power, the parties and people will know not to give that person seats. The current system puts trust in the MCs to vote but respect their thinking, the system you're proposing holds a child's hand. You, of all people, a self proclaimed free-thinker, should be able to see the problem with this. Yes thank you! Tim your wrong, sorry man like I've said before mostly as in always up to this point have I been on your side about just everything. If this passes then I am done. It's not really me saying ok I'm going to jump; it would be in keeping with the law. I can't back something up in good faith that can think a law like this is right. Traditionally, political scientists have focused on the role of political parties as instruments of promoting candidacies in elections to public office. Crotty defines political parties as: “A political party is a formally organized group that performs the functions of educating the public to acceptance of the system as well as the more immediate implications of policy concerns, that recruits and promotes individuals for public office, and that provides a comprehensive linkage function between the public and governmental decision makers. “ Guys, a political party is not the government. It’s a privet organization. The parties are registered, but (and I do have a limited understanding) the law does not forbid a party from regulating the circumstances of seats given to MCs. If you want to pass any legislation then you pass something saying that the parties are anonyms with in them selves. This is just not good joojoo men, it’s freaking me out . |
|
Cjara B
Citizen since 5-3-2007
Citizen of Talossa, and now Florencia
Posts: 368
|
Post by Cjara B on Jul 21, 2008 12:04:00 GMT -6
Brad, you’re like a brother, but I really am surprised and kinda ashamed that you are in favor of this at this point.
About a year ago someone told me I was wrong with out proof and I stood up and took it with out defending my self. The only way this became a problem was because to many people were willing to fallow a leader blindly with out question.
IF RUMP writes a party platform saying that everyone is going to have to vote for laws that involve cutting your legs off, and most people Vote rump because they have always voted rump, and Rump gets a majority. Then we end up with no MC or hardly any. Rump now has most of the seats. So we get a law saying everyone has to cut their legs off…. The limited number of anyone paying any attention wouldn’t be able to vote something like that down. ON the MC side anyway.
We have a check and balance system between the Cosa and the Senators.
NO more is needed
If your theory is that something like that would never happen. Then we don’t need this new one either
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 13:09:57 GMT -6
AD, what is the point of MCs then? Why not just assign the seats to the party and let the party vote, why even bother having to let anyone within the party be assigned seats. That is, after all, what is being proposed: to create an illusion. Party 1: Mandatory Votes ABCD Party 2: Mandatory Votes EFGH You support ABGD, you are a member of Party 1. You are totally against EFCH, why should you be penalized for being against only a fraction of the party, when everything else you have believe in falls perfectly in line with the party? 75% of you is party 1, 25% of you is party 2. If the party says "you must vote a certain way", you must vote that way, abstaining wouldn't be an option because you would be voting against the bill. Like I said, we have a system which has potential for abuse, all systems do. But the "reformers," as you have so eloquently dubbed yourselves, wish to replace it with a system that has GREATER potential for abuse, and more chance of it happening. You're saying: if you don't like your party, wait till the Clark is over and switch. I'm saying, if a member of the MC joins a party, gets assigned seats, then switches parties at the beginning or abuses his power, the parties and people will know not to give that person seats. The current system puts trust in the MCs to vote but respect their thinking, the system you're proposing holds a child's hand. You, of all people, a self proclaimed free-thinker, should be able to see the problem with this. Yes thank you! Tim your wrong, sorry man like I've said before mostly as in always up to this point have I been on your side about just everything. If this passes then I am done. It's not really me saying ok I'm going to jump; it would be in keeping with the law. I can't back something up in good faith that can think a law like this is right. Traditionally, political scientists have focused on the role of political parties as instruments of promoting candidacies in elections to public office. Crotty defines political parties as: “A political party is a formally organized group that performs the functions of educating the public to acceptance of the system as well as the more immediate implications of policy concerns, that recruits and promotes individuals for public office, and that provides a comprehensive linkage function between the public and governmental decision makers. “ Guys, a political party is not the government. It’s a privet organization. The parties are registered, but (and I do have a limited understanding) the law does not forbid a party from regulating the circumstances of seats given to MCs. If you want to pass any legislation then you pass something saying that the parties are anonyms with in them selves. This is just not good joojoo men, it’s freaking me out . Cjara, If you consistently vote against your party and don't get seats assigned to you after the GE, that is still one way a party enforces voting along party lines. What is the big deal with allowing a party to determine how seats are maintained? Again, if you don't like how a party manages the seats, you can join a party with a more liberal charter or start your own party and manage the seats however you see fit. |
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 21, 2008 17:13:03 GMT -6
Brad, you’re like a brother, but I really am surprised and kinda ashamed that you are in favor of this at this point. Um, OK. Didn't know I was campaigning for your approval. But brothers and sisters don't always agree so maybe we can still be friends. The only way what became a problem? Took what without proof? What?! Anyone who truly blindly votes on party lines should have their legs cut off. And if some legislation or plank of a platform requires such an asinine rule, I'd bet good currency that the legislation and/or party would fail. Not true. They could vote it down once, and in *this* ridiculous scenario, lose their seats. True. And after all the RUMP MCs lost their cheeks for voting against the party line requiring everyone to chop their legs off, the few remaining legless RUMP MCs would consolidate power and Clark the bill again. Then it would be up to us super cool, ubber intelligent Senators to shoot down another bill. It would be shot down as many times as it would take to get to the next General Election that would vote the legless RUMPers out of power. That's not my theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 20:08:02 GMT -6
Yes thank you! Tim your wrong, sorry man like I've said before mostly as in always up to this point have I been on your side about just everything. If this passes then I am done. It's not really me saying ok I'm going to jump; it would be in keeping with the law. I can't back something up in good faith that can think a law like this is right. Traditionally, political scientists have focused on the role of political parties as instruments of promoting candidacies in elections to public office. Crotty defines political parties as: “A political party is a formally organized group that performs the functions of educating the public to acceptance of the system as well as the more immediate implications of policy concerns, that recruits and promotes individuals for public office, and that provides a comprehensive linkage function between the public and governmental decision makers. “ Guys, a political party is not the government. It’s a privet organization. The parties are registered, but (and I do have a limited understanding) the law does not forbid a party from regulating the circumstances of seats given to MCs. If you want to pass any legislation then you pass something saying that the parties are anonyms with in them selves. This is just not good joojoo men, it’s freaking me out . Cjara, If you consistently vote against your party and don't get seats assigned to you after the GE, that is still one way a party enforces voting along party lines. What is the big deal with allowing a party to determine how seats are maintained? Again, if you don't like how a party manages the seats, you can join a party with a more liberal charter or start your own party and manage the seats however you see fit. Here is what you may be forgetting, a lot can change over the course of a day to a week to a month to a year. A lot can change from Clark to Clark. While you may disagree with your party 10% on one bill one Clark, you may completely agree with the party 100% the following Clark. Under your system, there is no redemption unless the party sees fit to give it to you, to look the other way, but it still up to the party. That being said, you run the risk of losing the conversation we're having now. If something as contentious comes up again and you get this amendment passed, what is to say we'd be able to debate it? The party would know where we stand and could strip our seats PRIOR to the vote if we spoke up. |
|
Cjara B
Citizen since 5-3-2007
Citizen of Talossa, and now Florencia
Posts: 368
|
Post by Cjara B on Jul 22, 2008 17:03:58 GMT -6
Here is what you may be forgetting, a lot can change over the course of a day to a week to a month to a year. A lot can change from Clark to Clark. While you may disagree with your party 10% on one bill one Clark, you may completely agree with the party 100% the following Clark. Under your system, there is no redemption unless the party sees fit to give it to you, to look the other way, but it still up to the party. That being said, you run the risk of losing the conversation we're having now. If something as contentious comes up again and you get this amendment passed, what is to say we'd be able to debate it? The party would know where we stand and could strip our seats PRIOR to the vote if we spoke up. Right again. Brad mostly what I meant when I was talking right at you, was that, being raised along similar lines I’m shocked at you. Both you and Tim frankly. I have to say when this first came out I wasn't worried about it tell Tim was so clearly in suport. The thing is though. People do vote party with out bothering to gain facts. The Rump has some other government election process passed around in the last couple of days, I still feel that this bill could be corrected, but as it stands… |
|
