The REALLY FIRST Reunision Party

[Xhorxh Asmour]

The Peculiarist Party, or APT, is in fact the FIRST party founded for the post-reunision era, having had a webpage for several days now:
www.eispetz.com/nrp/apt1.html

We have just opened a forum, under construction:
peculiarism.proboards.com/index.cgi

All Talossans are invited to visit, propose and discuss ideas, and join our party.

The APT upholds realist but not royalist values, including arguing for modern features of democracy, such as the secret ballot and a representative parliament that deserves this name.

We fight for official recognition that we're not a real-life nation and thus do not have real territorial claims. We're a nationlike international community (or nationette) and must recognize the existence of other similar communities or micronations.

Also, we're going to work hard for the promotion and further development of our language, the Glhetg, by means of a more active CUG and the establishment of online courses and free access to the complete grammar and dictionary.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Mar 8, 2012 6:44:44 GMT -6 Xhorxh Asmour said:

a representative parliament that deserves this name

Do you think the parliament is not representative and if so, what does the APT want to change to solve this problem?

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

We should expand this in our homepage, thanks for pointing out that this statement looks "hazy".

What is meant is a proportional representation in which each MC is holding exactly one seat, one vote.

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

Hum, we should work togheter , since 25 different party will never have a chance to become the governement...

We need to joins a commun force.

Mximo

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

C'est vrai. The opposition should at least try to agree on a common agenda in the essential issues. Shouldn't be rocket science...

[Óïn Ursüm]

The opposition parties could form a loose "electoral pact" and agree to form a coalition in the event that it becomes possible. Such things as the secret ballot could be the unifying theme.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

I think so.

By the way, I am a Republican, maybe even more anti-monarchist than many others, but I think the issue of having a King or not is something that I'd gladly put aside if some more essential issues could be resolved first.

A one MC, one seat, one vote policy is at the top of the list, IMO.

[Istefan Perþonest]

A legislative body where everyone holds just one seat and one vote . . . isn't that, you know, rather a Derivativist view for the leader of a Peculiarist party?

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Forgot to mention the secret ballot - and, cough, being a Peculiarst doesn't mean that I have to wear a green-spotted pink bodysuit and a winged cap on my head.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 9, 2012 16:26:48 GMT -6 D. N. Vercáriâ said:

Forgot to mention the secret ballot

Higher or lesser in importance than one MC, one vote?

Mar 9, 2012 16:26:48 GMT -6 D. N. Vercáriâ said:

being a Peculiarst doesn't mean that I have to wear a green-spotted pink bodysuit and a winged cap on my head.

Of course not. But you must admit there's at least a surface incongruity in the leader of Peculiarists saying his #1 priority is a reform that would make Talossa more like the many countries that use party list proportional representation.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Just a note - the ZRT position is that the secret ballot is more important than "one MC one vote", but "voting for lists of candidates and not giving blank cheques to party leaders" is more important as well. The question is democracy, rather than equality of MCs.

The big issue with one MC one vote, as we've found out in the Republic, is the "vacant seat" problem caused by political apathy. If the people freely choose to give a one-person party 40% of the vote, then that person should be entitled to weild 40% of the voting power, although not to delegate any of it to his cronies who weren't on the ballot. A list system with the current 200-seat Cosâ could work by saying "#1 on the list has to have more seats than #2 and #3, etc etc."

Anyway, I 100% support the concept of the ZRT, the Peculiarists and anyone else who's interested forming a "Democratic Front" around a minimal programme for the next Cosâ election.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 9, 2012 18:03:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The big issue with one MC one vote, as we've found out in the Republic, is the "vacant seat" problem caused by political apathy.

This is, incidentally, why the current 200-seat Cosa was adopted in the Kingdom; the OrgLaw originally had a 20-seat "Real Cosa" with one-MC, one vote.

Mar 9, 2012 18:03:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

A list system with the current 200-seat Cosâ could work by saying "#1 on the list has to have more seats than #2 and #3, etc etc."

I note that there is nothing in Kingdom law that actually gives a party leader the power to decide who gets how many seats. Instead, the OrgLaw says that a party's seats shall be divided by that party as it sees fit. Parties in historical practice have left that up to the leader, but a party is perfectly capable of adopting its own rules requiring lists and such, binding on itself. Parties that wish to adopt the party list approach accordingly can go ahead and demonstrate the idea.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Mar 9, 2012 17:28:15 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

... you must admit there's at least a surface incongruity in the leader of Peculiarists saying his #1 priority is a reform that would make Talossa more like the many countries that use party list proportional representation.

You seem to operate under the assumption that it's the Peculiarists' intention to do crazy things and to be different by all means. But it's the opposite. Our point is that we don't have to take our Talossanity so far that we're willing to do crazy things for it, like, for instance, seriously applying for a seat in the UNO. We admit that we'll probably never be getting there, and we don't care. In our opinion Talossa can act Talossan without any foreign recognition; that's the kind of peculiarity that we are willing to accept as a part of the peculiar nature of Talossa. This is just one example of the Peculiarist Dialectic that is guiding us.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Mar 9, 2012 18:39:39 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Mar 9, 2012 18:03:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The big issue with one MC one vote, as we've found out in the Republic, is the "vacant seat" problem caused by political apathy.

This is, incidentally, why the current 200-seat Cosa was adopted in the Kingdom; the OrgLaw originally had a 20-seat "Real Cosa" with one-MC, one vote.

I won't deny that there may be some advantages of the 200-seat Cosâ; but there's a downside. As long as Talossa has less than 200 citizens, everyone who likes to found a party is kind of automatically a MC; the voters may just decide if they want to grant this party of one the maximum power of 30 seats, or less. In combination with a registration fee that means: You can buy yourself a place in the Cosâ, and as long as you keep voting for yourself, no-one can stop you.

I think that the voters should have a right to bar candidates from becoming an MC; hence the Cosâ should be small enough to make sure that there's a healthy political competition. By the way, this might be a receipe against a splintered opposition as well, as there would be some incentive for "bundling" political initiatives, rather than just being a political Major Tom in his lonely universe.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Who has been buying themselves a seat? Has that happened?