Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 25, 2014 12:37:53 GMT -6
The IND was basically a party of administrators who wanted to remain "semi-detached" from the RUMP.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jul 25, 2014 13:25:23 GMT -6
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. You are a populist party, then? "If you want something, vote for us and we'll do it", or "If you don't know who will you vote for, vote for us and you won't regret it"? This is very confusional. You don't vote basing on a manifesto, you just vote for a party with very vague principles. "Anyone who shares the platform may apply", but there's no platform and no manifesto. But they already are able to answer for their actions and nothing would change if they were sitting in the Cosa. They already are. A province can elect its own Senator and conduct the election without demanding it to the Chancery, and there isn't any fixed rule on how to conduct an election. You can do it FPTP, IRV, whichever you like. You say the PC is a federal party, but you kill provincial endeavour by permitting multiple offices to be hold by one citizen alone. I'm not opposed to that, just... that's not what a federal party committed to provinces would do. Okay, this is meant for you, isn't it? Well, I echo Miestra's considerations. Even if I would consider to vote for a different party than my own, why should I choose a party that is basically neutral on every possible stance?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 25, 2014 14:36:28 GMT -6
You are a populist party, then? "If you want something, vote for us and we'll do it", or "If you don't know who will you vote for, vote for us and you won't regret it"? This is very confusional. You don't vote basing on a manifesto, you just vote for a party with very vague principles. "Anyone who shares the platform may apply", but there's no platform and no manifesto. Don't presume to know how each of the voters vote. Who knows? Maybe there are voters who just want to be heard on their own principles? That's your opinion, and I respect it. I placed my opinion above. No, they don't... the date of elections is fixed nationally. The idea that it is an elected position is fixed nationally. The fact that there IS a particuliar Senator and that if they don't vote twice in a row is fixed nationally. What if a province decides to have it's legislature vote on every RZ and to pass the outcome as their Senate vote? They can't do that, they need a sitting Senator. Note that I am NOT saying they should do that, just that if a province wants to do that, they have my support. I don't kill endeavor, I merely say that if the province wants it, so be it. It's not up to the Ziu to decide. It's what I think. If you do not agree, join the PC and propose a change! I might surprise you, but no. It's for the wiki admins, the Wittmeisters, the coin master, etc... It is not neutral on EVERYTHING. You have just listed things clearly pointed out! You could join the PC to propose your suggestions, for example.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jul 25, 2014 16:46:37 GMT -6
No, they don't... the date of elections is fixed nationally. The idea that it is an elected position is fixed nationally. The fact that there IS a particuliar Senator and that if they don't vote twice in a row is fixed nationally. It would be a fair share of trouble if a province decided to elect its Senator mid-Cosa, and I'm not sure anyone would desire to do that. And Senators are elected: this is how the Senate works, and a non-elected Senator - except interim Senators - is a serious punch in the face of the electorate, and I mean expecially those who don't like the appoined Senator and don't even have a chance of supporting another candidate. That's not democracy, and democracy is what the Senate is about. Then, the "two strikes, you're out" rule is paramount. A Senator who doesn't show up to discuss and vote is an insult to his colleagues and to his voters. ... because the Senate is composed of Senators. A vote is cast by a Senator, not by a province or by a provincial assembly on behalf of a province. If you want provincial legislatures to vote on national laws, why don't you create a third House of the Ziu? Again, that's not how the Senate works. Senators are elected and have fixed terms. You could amend the OrgLaw, but it'd have no sense at all to have permanently elected Senators. It isn't neutral, yeah, it's populist: you wish to endorse every choice made by the people. The people wants X, you'll campaign for X. A pot-pie blob, you nailed the descripition. I realize I might sound a bit rude, but I'm just trying to make you understand that your party platform wouldn't make a standard voter consider voting for your party.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jul 25, 2014 16:51:23 GMT -6
The IND was basically a party of administrators who wanted to remain "semi-detached" from the RUMP. After reading the leaks, I might well think that the IND was an experiment to see how one of the smaller parties that they proposed to create in place of the old RUMP would work, or a second subsidiary party to get more votes if some voters didn't like the RUMP or their leaders but wanted to vote a party just like the RUMP. In fact, they didn't really look like an "independent" party, more like a RUMP/2. I am probably wrong, but this was my theory back then.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 26, 2014 2:32:25 GMT -6
The IND was basically a party of administrators who wanted to remain "semi-detached" from the RUMP. After reading the leaks, I might well think that the IND was an experiment to see how one of the smaller parties that they proposed to create in place of the old RUMP would work, or a second subsidiary party to get more votes if some voters didn't like the RUMP or their leaders but wanted to vote a party just like the RUMP. In fact, they didn't really look like an "independent" party, more like a RUMP/2. I am probably wrong, but this was my theory back then. That could be... all I know is that right now (and back then), my idea of a PC come from my own problems with the RUMP and not a desire to test the waters or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 26, 2014 2:48:44 GMT -6
No, they don't... the date of elections is fixed nationally. The idea that it is an elected position is fixed nationally. The fact that there IS a particuliar Senator and that if they don't vote twice in a row is fixed nationally. It would be a fair share of trouble if a province decided to elect its Senator mid-Cosa, and I'm not sure anyone would desire to do that. And Senators are elected: this is how the Senate works, and a non-elected Senator - except interim Senators - is a serious punch in the face of the electorate, and I mean expecially those who don't like the appoined Senator and don't even have a chance of supporting another candidate. That's not democracy, and democracy is what the Senate is about. What about a province deciding that every active citizens gets a single Clark during which they serve as a Senator, but they vote how the legislative chamber told them to vote (so he is a delegate instead of an independent Senator) What about a province deciding that they want an election OUTSIDE of the Cosâ election to ensure that both are not contaminating each other? In the US, all elections run on the same day of the year, but not all of the world does the same thing. What about a province deciding that the role of Senator is randomly drawn from a hat every 2 months, with the number of names in the hat proportional to the number of seats won in the chamber? Fair only applies if everyone wants the same thing. In a democracy, we have to be willing to follow the majority. If the majority of the citizens of a province want to do something weird with their senate seat, they should be allowed, in my opinion. Heck, a province might decide to name their senator for LIFE in their constitution, and update their constitution every 2 years when it's time for an election (hey, I might propose that for Atatûrk... I like this one) See, that's where I don't agree. I don't care if the Senator not voting is an insult to his colleagues. The Senator isn't there for his colleagues, he is there for his province. If my senator is putting the good of his colleagues ahead of the interests of my province, he is failing at his job. Period. Furthermore, what about a province deciding to boycott the Senate? What if a province is unhappy with something and they vote to boycott it? My point however, is that if a Senator doesn't vote for 2 Clarks in a row, the SoS should notify the province, and the province's constitution should decide what happens. One province might hold by-elections, another might name it from the legislation, another might put the runner up for Senator. Yes, you are right, that's how it is right now. I am not contradicting you about that. I am mentioning what my party stands for. You are aware that as a party, the PC is allowed to propose changes to the way Talossa works, right? The ZRT wants a Republic, the PC wants stronger provinces and that the Senate be a chamber of the provinces (if the provinces individually want it). Is that hard to understand? And again, you are saying how things work! As for sense, well, guess what? I don't care about sense. I care about the voters of each province. If a province wants a permanently elected Senator, they can play with it, until they decide to amend their own constitution and play with another means of electing their Senator. Who says I want standard voters voting for my party? I clearly say we don't search for power and won't nominate a PM. Does it look like we are trying to get a majority?
|
|