The Leaked Patriotic Coalition party platform

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Here is the leaked PC party platform I had written months ago.

For this upcoming election, I had considered joining the Worker party and even applied for membership, but I cannot join a party founded by the person who make the leak. I cannot in good conscience join what is apparently nothing other than an anti RUMP party, not because I am pro-RUMP, but because nothing good can come from an anti-[other party] party.

So, I am party less once more. I wondered if I would join the RUMP again, or if I would join the MRPT or another party, and honestly, I am tired of the way politics are currently done.

So, I was wondering, does anyone think like I do? That it's time for issue politics and not power politics? That the best for Talossa isn't being a Kingdom or a Republic but rather about having a healthy debate between the two? That the best isn't this or that, but finding good innovative solutions?

If so, here is what I had in mind for a platform. If someone wants to join me who didn't leak my personal name and email in the last 2 weeks, I am willing to open discussing the finer points.

The Patriotic Coalition Party (PC Party) is a new open federal party of Talossa.


What is an open party?

It is a party with:

• Open membership to all citizens (anyone who shares the platform can apply)
• Open seats (anyone who shares the platform can get one of the available Cosa Seats)
• Open to a coalition with all parties willing to work with it
• An Open Mind toward all political position: the PC works with Issue politics and not Power politics

The Patriotic Coalition believes in:

The Power of the Citizens:

Talossa, first and foremost, is to be governed for its citizens. This means a transparent government which actually gives a report on its actions to the population.

This also means that since electors vote for a party and not Cosa member, we believe that Cosa Seats should belong to the party which distributed them until such a time as when Cosa Member names will be in the ballot. This means that if a Cosa Member changes party, his original party may keep his seats.

The power of the Cosa:

The Cosa is the chamber of the people and as such, the core of Talossa. We believe notably that:

At the beginning of each Cosa, the Seneschal should be elected by the majority of the Cosa, either via a STV, Ranked Ballot or 2 turn election by the members of the Cosa.

We also believe that Ministers and important officials of Talossa should also be Cosa Members to be able to answer for their actions in the Cosa.

The Independence of the Senate:

Because the Senate is the chamber of the provinces, we believe that provinces should have a say in how their senator is elected and how he votes, provided that the method of selection is legitimate (supported by the citizens of the province)

The PC Party believes that a province could choose an alternative method of choosing their senator, such as automatically appointing the lawfully elected Premier or Governor of the province as the senator for that province or even selecting a permanent senator bound to vote as the provincial chamber instructed him or her to vote.

The importance of the bureaucracy:

Because Talossa is a voluntary institution, we believe that active, honest, professional and efficient citizens should be rewarded for their efforts by giving them an official position free from politics defining their level of implication when such implication benefits all of Talossa, provided the citizens follows the directives of the government.

The importance of divergence

The PC party strongly believes that what makes Talossa great is the debates between opposing ideas. In the debate between keeping Talossa a Kingdom or making it a Republic or in the conflict between Peculiarism and Derivatism, the PC Party positions itself to keep a healthy debate alive, to the preservation of the minority position, which may shift over time, so that all Talossan feel included.

This also means inserting wackiness when the situation is too tense and getting down to business when the situation is too light.

The person of the King

The PC Party has a profound respect for the present King as an individual and wishes to keep him as King of Talossa. This doesn't precludes the creation of the position of a President of Talossa or of making Talossa a Republic. This respect is given to the individual currently King of Talossa and not necessarily toward the position he holds.

The offices of the Ministers

The PC Party believes in active Ministers and favors nominating to the various Ministries the best candidates for the jobs regardless of their political affiliation. Better have a minister from the opposition who does his or her job well than a member of the ruling party who is inactive.

The web presence of Talossa

The PC Party is 100% behind the expansion of the Talossan WIKI and the improvement of the Talossan Database Project. It support the creation of a new Talossa official website.

The power of Coalition

The PC Party will never nominate one of its Cosa members for the office of the Seneschal or campaign for a particular individual to become Seneschal as a single party (individual members of the party may support a candidate of another party during the elections). In the tradition of respecting divergence the PC Party doesn't campaign to form the government, but rather to participate in the government. Members of the PC Party may serve as Senechal if nominated for the Cosa but as this is not the goal of the PC Party, they should not hold the office for more than 2 Clarks unless warranted otherwise.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by issue and power politics, and help me understand how all of the active parties have fallen short when it comes to this?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 23, 2014 5:34:40 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by issue and power politics, and help me understand how all of the active parties have fallen short when it comes to this?

If explained with a Issue Politics bias here are the definitions:

Issue Politics is when you ignore political allegiance and try to fix the issues the best you can.

Power Politics is when you try to use issues to further your own political agenda.

I am not sure how to explain it with a power politic bias, but it's probably centered around party lines and loyalty, or seeing many bills as having a Monarchy or Republican agenda (for example).

The leaks show the preoccupation of the RUMP to stop bad bills, and that's not a bad thing in itself, but it's partly power politics, even if the goal is good (power political isn't bad per se).

The ZRT is a mostly single-issue party (being a Republican party). I am NOT saying they care about only one thing, because that would be slander. the ZRT stands for MORE than the Republic, but their issues are picked in part with the lends of Republicanism. Again, it's NOT a bad thing. They stand for something, and that's something to be commended. But, that's also a form of power politics, and again, not necessarily a bad thing.

The MRPT is a little more diverse, but they also have clear tenets (in that regard, the RUMP is possibly the only traditional power politics party, like the US Democats and Republicans are). The MRPT was, at the time of the last election, probably the most issue politic type of party, but it's not one of their tenets: it's a consequence of its members's philosophies of life and the lack of a single defining element in their platform.

The PC party I want to found, would be a pure issue politics party. One that doesn't care for power AT ALL. We would want votes, for course, to use those votes to get more influence in the Cosa.

But my goal, if the PC attained an absolute majority, would be to still recruit a PM from outside of our party, or, perhaps, have a rotation with each member serving one month.

Instead, the PC wants to focus on the TEXT of the bills alone, without taking into account: "Geez, this bill from the ZRT is good, but it brings us closer to a Republic so I will vote no", or "Yikes, this bill of the RUMP reduces the chances of a Republic, so I will vote against it even if otherwise, it's fine".

Or worse, "I hate the guy who proposed the bill, so I will vote against it".

I am NOT saying this is what other parties are doing. Just that we are the first to promise NOT to do it and to make it a major part of our platform.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I think if you spoke to members of most political parties in this country, you'd probably struggle to identify any one party interested in power politics. Of course, there's evidence to suggest now that RUMP were and I suspect continue to be engaging in power politics, but aside from that I don't think it's much of a problem. The problem we have in Talossa is voter inertia resulting in RUMP dominance, which reinforced by some of the things I've read, has never properly been dealt with as a consequence of it having benefited the dominant party.

You talk about monarchism and republicanism, and how that impacts the passing of a bill... The Liberal Congress takes a constitutionally agnostic approach to the issue. We as a party are not monarchist or republican, but some of our members do define themselves along those lines. We're already trailblazing along the issue politics path

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

The Party has now paid it's registration fee.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps I'm missing something here... What exactly is the point of your party? What does it stand for?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

I guess we have 3 main things we stand for:

1 ) Openness: We are the party of the common folk. Of those who want to participate without needing to "buy" into an ideology. Of those who want to be a MC just to propose their idea of a reform on how to administer the university, for example, and then, leave the Cosa. We are the party of the new citizens who have not yet found their ideological home, but who want to learn by participating. You have an idea for a law and are not an MC? Here, have a seat, return it at the end of the Clark. I know, it goes against EVERYTHING the other parties seem to believe in with their electoral lists. It's fine for them, but that's not what I believe in.

2 ) Balance: we believe that Talossa is best served by the "clash" between the ideologies such as between Liberalism and Conservatism, or between Monarchists and Republicans, or between derivatism versus peculiarism or even between seriousness and wackyness. We think that all idea must be heard (but not necessarly applied) and that from the discussion between the point of views comes the best ideas. We believe in building bridges between these extremes so that peace can reign.

3 ) Divergence: We want to do things differently. For example, all of the parties want to rule. We don't. Someone who like a certain party leader but not doesn't necessarily want to join that party could join our party, become and MC, and back that person as PM.

We also back Talossa's online presence, but that's because it's my own pet peeve...

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

That sounds an awful lot like IND.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jul 24, 2014 18:11:23 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

I guess we have 3 main things we stand for:

1 ) Openness: We are the party of the common folk. Of those who want to participate without needing to "buy" into an ideology. Of those who want to be a MC just to propose their idea of a reform on how to administer the university, for example, and then, leave the Cosa. We are the party of the new citizens who have not yet found their ideological home, but who want to learn by participating. You have an idea for a law and are not an MC? Here, have a seat, return it at the end of the Clark. I know, it goes against EVERYTHING the other parties seem to believe in with their electoral lists. It's fine for them, but that's not what I believe in.

2 ) Balance: we believe that Talossa is best served by the "clash" between the ideologies such as between Liberalism and Conservatism, or between Monarchists and Republicans, or between derivatism versus peculiarism or even between seriousness and wackyness. We think that all idea must be heard (but not necessarly applied) and that from the discussion between the point of views comes the best ideas. We believe in building bridges between these extremes so that peace can reign.

3 ) Divergence: We want to do things differently. For example, all of the parties want to rule. We don't. Someone who like a certain party leader but not doesn't necessarily want to join that party could join our party, become and MC, and back that person as PM.

We also back Talossa's online presence, but that's because it's my own pet peeve...

1. As with most parties, it's rare for someone (including a member) to agree 100% with everything a party stands for, but parties should represent a particular set of ideals or else people don't know what they're voting for. I still don't know what it is the PC stands for, despite your response.

2. Don't you think that there are enough parties who fit in between the political philosophies of Talossa? In between the monarchists and republicans, you have the centrists of the ModRads and the Liberals. In between the Liberals and the Conservatives, you have a number of parties. I don't see this as being something particularly new.

3. If I wanted to be in charge, I probably wouldn't have quit the ZRT

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I suppose the question really is: what is the second axis of Talossan politics right now? Axis 1 is of course Hard Monarchists (RUMP) -> Soft Monarchists (ModRads, Progs) -> Neutrals (LibCon, TWP) -> Republicans (ZRT). The second axis used to be Derivative -> Peculiar, but I really don't think that's an issue right now. It might be Liberal -> Dirigiste (i.e. how much day-to-day involvement the State should have in making sure Talossa keeps going - is it the job of government to step in whenever the pot stops bubbling, or is it best to leave things to themselves?)

I suppose the PC-MPF is "Neutral" on both issues, which makes me wonder, sorry, why anyone would vote for it.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Maybe Peculiarist has become the Talossan equivalent of "Ecologist" in Germany (at least) - almost every party claims to be Peculiarist to some extent, so being Peculiarist or not isn't a sufficiently distinctive quality of a party any more.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 25, 2014 3:21:44 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I suppose the question really is: what is the second axis of Talossan politics right now? Axis 1 is of course Hard Monarchists (RUMP) -> Soft Monarchists (ModRads, Progs) -> Neutrals (LibCon, TWP) -> Republicans (ZRT). The second axis used to be Derivative -> Peculiar, but I really don't think that's an issue right now. It might be Liberal -> Dirigiste (i.e. how much day-to-day involvement the State should have in making sure Talossa keeps going - is it the job of government to step in whenever the pot stops bubbling, or is it best to leave things to themselves?)

I suppose the PC-MPF is "Neutral" on both issues, which makes me wonder, sorry, why anyone would vote for it.

Because not everyone has a firm stand or finds their proper position in the grid.

We are not so much Neutral as Open.

Imagine 4 axis, Monarchy-Republic, Derivative-Peculiar, Liberal-Dirigiste, Centralist-Decentralist

Each party positions itself on at least 3 of the Axis.

For example, the RUMP might be Monarchy-Derivative-Dirigiste (I am not saying it is)

The monarchy parties might all be derivative, for example, and the Republican parties might all be Peculiar (again, not saying it is the case).

But what if you are Monarchist-Peculiar, or Republican-Derivatist?

So, what do you do? You found your own party? 

Well, this was the way.

With the new PC, I want to create a pot pie blob like the old PC was, or like the RUMP is a little, but where all members retain their identity and vote how they want.

On some things, I agree more with the MRPT, on others with the RUMP. I now realize I also have some things in common with the ZRT.

Others might feel the same. The PC is there for that.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 24, 2014 20:04:07 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

That sounds an awful lot like IND.

As far I as know, the IND isn't running for this election, but all of its members are welcome!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The IND isn't running, but yeah, that's basically identical to their philosophy.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 25, 2014 11:29:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The IND isn't running, but yeah, that's basically identical to their philosophy.

Odd coincidence!

I never saw the IND running and I never read their platform. I arrived after their last election.