Announcing: Talossan Socialist Party

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Apr 27, 2015 13:06:26 GMT -6 Gaglhen Fortaleça said:

Would we retain some sort of party autonomy?

The ZRT and the Liberal Congress are still totally autonomous. We are fighting the election together and we will sit in the next Cosâ together, and we will be bound to enact the FreeDem manifesto. But apart from that we are still independent.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I'm assuming you'll also enter potential coalition negotiations as one party?

[Gaglhen Fortaleça]

Ok, we will consider joining this alliance once we reach a larger amount of members

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

That's a decision that will have to be made by everyone in the Alliance. You might have to convince some liberals about the whole socialism thing...

[Gaglhen Fortaleça]

Of course, if it is to happen, it would be at a later date

[Eiric La Carità]

I'm skeptical, what socialit ideology will you be touting? Or ae you worng towards an original ideology?

[Gaglhen Fortaleça]

A state run media (Youtube Channel etc.), stronger power to the people (more use of direct democracy), lowering the power of the king.

[Gaglhen Fortaleça]

The Youtube Channel would be handled by a new department of government (Original establishments such as the Beric'ht won't be absorbed) and be under the jurisdiction of different party representatives to truly give all sides of the story on any topic.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Apr 30, 2015 5:14:54 GMT -6 Gaglhen Fortaleça said:

 (more use of direct democracy)

The problem with direct democracy is that most citizens of Talossa aren't active enough for direct democracy to occur...

At the last election, we had roughly 250 citizens. 106 of them actually voted.

For the vote, they only needed to specify a party... imagine asking many of these citizens to do more politically!

The problem is that sometimes, you have a active citizen who has a new kid, a new job, a new semester, etc... They then becomes inactive for a few months/years, only to return later.

The other problem is that for many citizens, they want to be Talossans for partial reasons: they love the language and collaborate on the language, study it, etc.. but don't care so much about politics.

Asking them to vote on all bills means their votes will be one way or another influences by the people they feel know more about those issues.

For example, I admit a few times abstaining on a bill I know little about, only to later see a Ziu member I trust voting with a comment that moves one way or another.

Now, if you want to allow more people to participate in the Cosa, you could take over the part of PC Party (which I founded)'s platform: the idea to welcome new citizens easily in the Cosa by offering them seats, and a reform of the Organic Law allowing easy seat reassignment.

With JUST that platform, the PC got 6 votes out of 100, so who knows, you might get some of those votes for your party, and perhaps, you could recruit more easily new citizens since all of the other parties insist that their Cosa Members be an actual member of their party...

As you get new citizens on your side, your share of votes would rise perhaps enough so that you would have your more direct democracy, simply by having more citizens in the Cosa, each with less seats.

But hey, I might be wrong. I don't have omniscience... 

[Eiric La Carità]

I like the idea of a Youtube Channel, and a public broadcaster. As a Canadian, I enjoy my CBC... a lot. I also enjoy watching the BBC. However, a public broadcaster is a very liberal idea and socially... a no-brainer. Do you plan on hosting 24/7 propaganda on the channel and/or far-left socialist bias?

Maybe a link up with the FreeDems is not such a bad idea. Have you courted the other parties as previously suggested?

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Apr 30, 2015 6:09:11 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Apr 30, 2015 5:14:54 GMT -6 Gaglhen Fortaleça said:

 (more use of direct democracy)

The problem with direct democracy is that most citizens of Talossa aren't active enough for direct democracy to occur...

At the last election, we had roughly 250 citizens. 106 of them actually voted....

But hey, I might be wrong. I don't have omniscience... 

It might also be that government is not the most important part of a culture - the literature, cooking, language, friendships, local eccentricities, music, quirky choices of films (movies), and so on, are (to my mind) even more important. The 142 who did not vote were, perhaps, watching Manos or translating Edgar Allan Poe or singing in Talossan or wondering about how to name the elements or celebrating birthdays or travelling to other countries or.... well, the list might be a long one.

I repeat: politics and government are not the most important parts of a culture.
Direct democracy is also the people shouting in the streets (or commenting online).

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

May 1, 2015 15:13:05 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

Apr 30, 2015 6:09:11 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

The problem with direct democracy is that most citizens of Talossa aren't active enough for direct democracy to occur...

At the last election, we had roughly 250 citizens. 106 of them actually voted....

But hey, I might be wrong. I don't have omniscience... 

It might also be that government is not the most important part of a culture - the literature, cooking, language, friendships, local eccentricities, music, quirky choices of films (movies), and so on, are (to my mind) even more important. The 142 who did not vote were, perhaps, watching Manos or translating Edgar Allan Poe or singing in Talossan or wondering about how to name the elements or celebrating birthdays or travelling to other countries or.... well, the list might be a long one.

I repeat: politics and government are not the most important parts of a culture.
Direct democracy is also the people shouting in the streets (or commenting online).

Hell yeah... I didn't imply that at all!!! Just that if they cared about the government part, they would have voted.

Just because they don't vote doesn't make them any less Talossan, but it does make them less interested in the political part of things, so asking them to do even more is a waste of their time, IMHO.

[Gaglhen Fortaleça]

If less people vote, better for the direct democracy, those who truly feel that Talossa needs a better government or that something needs reforming will attend, the TSP doesn't expect everyone to vote, as you've already illustrated Talossa is NOT all about the government, we just happen to be the sect that is most interested in it, this thread holds the same real world effect as, say, a discussion thread on MLP or world war 2 tanks or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Talossa is a country made up of it's culture, love of literature and film, and quirky obsessions, as far as most Talossans are concerned, we're just a side show.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I actually feel quite differently... I feel that it's better to encourage people to vote and to show them that the government should represent the interests of all Talossans, not just the most active. I believe this not just for an ideological reason (the government is the expression of the political will of the whole nation, in the ideal) but also for practical reasons. If we encourage only the most active to vote, then inevitably the government will only cater to the active and neglect those who "do Talossa" in spurts or who don't have time for civic things at the moment. There is historical precedent... the French Revolution made a formal distinction between "active citizens" and "passive citizens," and it led to the active citizens serving their own interests above all. The situation was much more complicated than just that, of course (local Parisian interests were also disproportionately represented, etc.) but it still skewed the actions of the government far from what was best for the whole nation.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Plus, jusy because Talossa got rid of Ben's pocket votes doesn't mean that Talossa is immune to future pocket votes.

It would already be bad enough if we have pocket votes in our elections, but it would be worse if our legislature had them vote on issues.

Can you imagine them not bothering to vote on most bills so that only the active citizens vote, and suddenly, an issue affects the party which "controls them" and they all shift the balance on that one bill?

Sure, if pocket votes return in our current system, it would mean providing a party with a higher share of the Cosa votes for the whole 6 Clarks, but at least, it's real Cosa members voting.

And if we go back to that system, I would certainly lobby for the Real Cosa back (20 members of Cosa each with a single vote), which is the true protection against pocket votes.