Question for the ZRT

[Glüc da Dhi]

Talking about principles, the ZRT has been very clear before the election that they would only assign seats to people on their candidate list. The RUMPs practice of doing so has been described by the ZRT as clientelism, buying the favors of unelected citizens for future elections.

So why then, has the ZRT assigned one seat to Mximo Carbonel, who ran in the election as party leader of a different party.
Could it be that Mximo getting the seat had anything to do with the merger with the LPR. Obviously the ZRT cared a lot about keeping Mximo loyal to the party this time. But wouldnt that clientelism?

Either way, it seems obvious that those who voted ZRT did not intend their vote to go to Mximo. If they wanted Mximo to receive their vote, they could very well have voted LPR. (Some might even say that not having Mximo on the list would have been favourable to the ZRT, but that is irrelevant.) With the ZRT being so vocal about the candidate list issue, it is clear that any informed ZRT voter could not reasonably have suspected that they would be really be helping the LPR.

How does the ZRT explain all this?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Wow. Now you're bringing into contention the merger of the two Republican parties as if this was something suspicious. Grow up, Glüc, such things happen all the time in other democracies.

Looking more and more like you're trying to line up to be Sir Alexandreu's lapdog in a centre-right coalition next time...

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jul 27, 2014 18:19:42 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Wow. Now you're bringing into contention the merger of the two Republican parties as if this was something suspicious. Grow up, Glüc, such things happen all the time in other democracies.

Looking more and more like you're trying to line up to be Sir Alexandreu's lapdog in a centre-right coalition next time...

No, what happens is:

Parties merge.
The party that "prevails" still keeps their seats, because in every other country - like you demand - there is a thing called "List of MCs", (or similar) which is binding.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

So - what? When Maxime's party merged with the ZRT, Maxime should have been thrown out of the Cosâ? Ridiculous.

Epic, you and Glüc have got nothing on the ZRT. Instead of us uniting in favour of building a better government next time - and no return to the sleazy Beagle Boys of the RUMP - you're up my ciúl with all this tu quoque stuff about inactivity, and arguing that the ZRT's understanding of how partisan legislatures work is an outrage. Stop it, you're looking foolish.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jul 27, 2014 18:19:42 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Wow. Now you're bringing into contention the merger of the two Republican parties as if this was something suspicious. Grow up, Glüc, such things happen all the time in other democracies.

Did you even read the question? The ZRT said, very clearly!, only seats to these people, then gave seats to someone else. Why?

Looking more and more like you're trying to line up to be Sir Alexandreu's lapdog in a centre-right coalition next time...

Not sure what this question has to do with that, but no, the RUMP doesnt look like a very attractive option at the moment. From your other comments though, it would seem like you are hoping to scare the MRPT from doing business with you again next time.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

If what you're asking is "why did we give Mximo an extra seat" the answer is "so that all ZRT members would have the same seats after redistribution of those we took off Carlüs". I personally feel that MCs having different numbers of seats is nonsense and crap, and so 4 or 5 seats is a distinction without a difference. No difference if I'd kept the extra seat myself, surely?

Glüc, stop it, you've got nothing on me, and this head-on-a-pin stuff about the electoral system is meaningless considering that both parties agree on the need for electoral reform. This just looks like desperation from you two.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Epic said:

Yes, suppose Party A has 2 MCs, and Party B has 3 MCs.

Scenario 1:
Party A gets "consumed" into Party B, the MCs do not resign. All is well, you cannot force any MC to vacate their seats. Here, I agree with you; neither you, nor the other persons would actually be in a political debacle, since there is nothing any one of you can really do.

Scenario 2:
Party A gets "consumed" into Party B, Party A's MCs do resign their seats. Party B has no seats to give to MCs of previous-Party A - done. Party A's MCs remain without seat, but "in the merger" of Party B. They can indirectly influence the 3 seats' votes.

Another scenario:
Party B's MC exits the party, returning his seats. He does not form a party. He just does not want to do anything with the politics of Party B, anymore. All is well.

OR:

Party B's MC exits the party, returning his seats. He founds another party with his views, waits to get a few people in his party, and decides (or not) to register to be shown on the next ballot. (As have done a few parties that were founded during this Cosa)

Your (crazily, u- or dystopian) scenario:
An MC of Party B goes out and founds Party C, relinquishing his seats out of cordiality, returning them back to Party B. Party B decides: "Cool, how kind of him. Party C, you can keep our seats, which are dedicated to "Party B" by the citizens and voters, but no matter! We should help you, because... you're a new party, of which nobody has heard!"

Or, how about this - a much better situation - once you have seats you can keep them, all of them, no matter if your party affiliation changes?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jul 27, 2014 18:36:27 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

So - what? When Maxime's party merged with the ZRT, Maxime should have been thrown out of the Cosâ? Ridiculous.

Epic, you and Glüc have got nothing on the ZRT. Instead of us uniting in favour of building a better government next time - and no return to the sleazy Beagle Boys of the RUMP - you're up my ciúl with all this tu quoque stuff about inactivity, and arguing that the ZRT's understanding of how partisan legislatures work is an outrage. Stop it, you're looking foolish.

HELLO, can you read? Epic said nothing about the LPR being kicked out of the Cosa. They had 4 seats, now they have 5, why is that?

Btw, obviously you bashing the MRPT for not doing more while all ZRT ministers combined were just half as active as one MRPT AG and blaming the MRPT for supporting a Seneschal you supported yourself is normal competition between parties and doesnt help the RUMP at all, but the MRPT criticising the ZRT for deliberately breaking one of the promises they were most vocal about during the election is basically the same as supporting the RUMP.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jul 27, 2014 18:51:39 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Epic said:

Yes, suppose Party A has 2 MCs, and Party B has 3 MCs.

Scenario 1:
Party A gets "consumed" into Party B, the MCs do not resign. All is well, you cannot force any MC to vacate their seats. Here, I agree with you; neither you, nor the other persons would actually be in a political debacle, since there is nothing any one of you can really do.

Scenario 2:
Party A gets "consumed" into Party B, Party A's MCs do resign their seats. Party B has no seats to give to MCs of previous-Party A - done. Party A's MCs remain without seat, but "in the merger" of Party B. They can indirectly influence the 3 seats' votes.

Another scenario:
Party B's MC exits the party, returning his seats. He does not form a party. He just does not want to do anything with the politics of Party B, anymore. All is well.

OR:

Party B's MC exits the party, returning his seats. He founds another party with his views, waits to get a few people in his party, and decides (or not) to register to be shown on the next ballot. (As have done a few parties that were founded during this Cosa)

Your (crazily, u- or dystopian) scenario:
An MC of Party B goes out and founds Party C, relinquishing his seats out of cordiality, returning them back to Party B. Party B decides: "Cool, how kind of him. Party C, you can keep our seats, which are dedicated to "Party B" by the citizens and voters, but no matter! We should help you, because... you're a new party, of which nobody has heard!"

Or, how about this - a much better situation - once you have seats you can keep them, all of them, no matter if your party affiliation changes?

Yeah, that would be scenario 1.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jul 27, 2014 18:49:05 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

If what you're asking is "why did we give Mximo an extra seat" the answer is "so that all ZRT members would have the same seats after redistribution of those we took off Carlüs". I personally feel that MCs having different numbers of seats is nonsense and crap, and so 4 or 5 seats is a distinction without a difference. No difference if I'd kept the extra seat myself, surely?

Glüc, stop it, you've got nothing on me, and this head-on-a-pin stuff about the electoral system is meaningless considering that both parties agree on the need for electoral reform. This just looks like desperation from you two.

Instead of trying to move the debate away from the question, can you at least acknowledge that you were very vocal about a promise and then went on to do completely the opposite?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, fine, that's what Mximo did with his seats. He gave them to me as ZRT leader. And then they were mine to do with as I pleased under current law. PROBLEM?

Glüc, no. You're wrong. I totally disagree with you that it was a violation of any promise. I simply reject your argument on this. I wager no-one cares apart from some oddballs in the ModRads (and some RUMPers who'll grab any miéidâ-covered stick to beat mewith). And harping on a controversy that was dead for three months shows that you've got no argument against the ZRT, and you should stop trying to find one.

You just didn't want Carlüs to found another "centrist" party to compete with you and you made up some nonsense "principled justification" to hide that.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jul 27, 2014 18:56:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Glüc, no. You're wrong. I totally disagree with you that it was a violation of any promise. I simply reject your argument on this.

And this, my children, is how politicians lie without repercussion.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Epic, think very, very carefully about what happens to politicians who burn bridges like this with their political allies.

I am not a liar. I take that as a personal insult. You will withdraw and apologise if you wish me to help you any further with your duties in Cabinet.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jul 27, 2014 18:56:49 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Well, fine, that's what Mximo did with his seats. He gave them to me as ZRT leader. And then they were mine to do with as I pleased under current law. PROBLEM?

Glüc, no. You're wrong. I totally disagree with you that it was a violation of any promise. I simply reject your argument on this.

Im not talking about Mximos 4 seats or Carlüs seats, Im talking about a ZRT seat, you promised you would assign to someone on your list, you bashed parties that wouldnt do the same, and then went on to assign to someone else. If you disagree that this is a violation of any promise, then you're either incredibly stupid or lying (or you just misunderstood the question), and I would say you're pretty intelligent, so...

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

"Im talking about a ZRT seat, you promised you would assign to someone on your list'

Just to clarify - you mean one of the seats that Carlüs surrendered, right? You are calling me a liar and a breaker of promises because I gave one of those six seats to Mximo who wasn't a ZRT member at the time of the next election? To do so would have meant a fetishistic attachment to the letter of a promise that would have made all kinds of perverse effects.

You are acting in an extremely childish and short-sighted manner. Both of you. I repeat: you have nothing, nothing to reproach me on, so you're reviving a manufactured scandal. Have you got anything else in your bag but personal insults?