|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 27, 2015 12:22:38 GMT -6
If a party doesn't want to publish a candidate list (assuming this bill is passed), they would either have to give all seats to the party leader or change the law.
I understand that, Ian. I'm asking, perhaps rhetorically, if that is something we're comfortable doing. Generally speaking, I like to be as liberal as possible and leave open any options that aren't a danger or wrongdoing, in terms of what is permissible. It's a lot to do with my own gradual recognition that I am neither that intelligent nor that creative when it comes to predicting and controlling the world in all its respects. That is to say, I know enough to know that I don't know much. So just because I can't predict, right now, why a party might want to have no candidate list doesn't mean that they still shouldn't have the right to do that, in the absence of a compelling reason why. I guess I'm just thinking out loud, but we really don't have that compelling of reasons for this reform -- heck, our reasons here started out with "we said we'd do this, so I guess we should" -- so I'm just wondering if it's worth it. Thinking out loud, more than anything.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 27, 2015 13:01:20 GMT -6
I guess I understand your question now. My main motivation for this bill is that voters deserve to know who will be representing them. Plain and simple.
Perhaps there will be a party at some point which does not wish to put out a candidate list, and their reason Can be evaluated later. I, like you, can't think of what this reason could be, but I don't think we shouldn't do something simply because there might be a reason, at a later time, why we should change it. That's why the law can be changed. I have laid out the advantages of this plan, and if a problem presents itself, we can cross that bridge when we get there.
Sorry if I had not fully understood your question before
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 27, 2015 13:34:31 GMT -6
That is a reason, except that we should consider that voters cast their votes for parties above all, not individuals. That's one of the ways in which the Senate is balanced against the Cosa -- a distinction we've highlighted by further separating senators from parties, recently.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 27, 2015 14:28:22 GMT -6
That is a reason, except that we should consider that voters cast their votes for parties above all, not individuals. Yes, but parties should be accountable to the people if they were to select as an MC someone whom the voters found subpar.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 27, 2015 15:00:12 GMT -6
I absolutely agree, but isn't that accountability to be found in the ballot box, as in every other instance? If a party makes a bad decision while in power, supports a new bill on a new issue, or gets a new leader, we naturally assume that the reckoning will come at the next election. Voters will judge whether or not the party did the right thing, and reward or punish them accordingly. This would be the only instance in which we were asking parties to pre-commit to a certain set of actions (ie who gets seats) before the election occurs.
Again, not arguing either way, but it's worth at least discussing.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 27, 2015 15:24:27 GMT -6
Most of your examples, such as getting a new leader or dealing with a new issue, are unpredictable, and it is impossible to make a party commit to something when nobody knows what that something is. However, seat assignments are different, since they happen every Cosa; this allows us to practically have parties commit to Cosa lists. Any increase in accountability is a good increase, I would say.
I think I am discussing this issue, with you anyway.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 27, 2015 19:31:03 GMT -6
Any increase in accountability is a good increase, I would say. How about, say, popular recall of individual MCs? What has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction is why the government's ideas of what voters should want counts for more than what they actually choose for themselves when it comes to their own representation. Suppose a party said "vote for us and we will use our own discretion to pick the MCs most qualified to advocate for our platform, but it's no concern of yours who we pick." You wouldn't vote for such a party, obviously, and I wouldn't vote for such a party, but who are we to tell another voter that they are not allowed to select such a party to represent them in the Cosa, for reasons that might not be important to you but are important to them?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 27, 2015 21:04:45 GMT -6
Most of your examples, such as getting a new leader or dealing with a new issue, are unpredictable, and it is impossible to make a party commit to something when nobody knows what that something is. However, seat assignments are different, since they happen every Cosa; this allows us to practically have parties commit to Cosa lists. Any increase in accountability is a good increase, I would say. A new person coming into the country who has skills and ideals that suit a party is also an unpredictable event, though, right? As have been the other past examples people got seats unexpectedly. Hm... this is a tough one. And Cresti makes a good point, too.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 27, 2015 21:14:04 GMT -6
Well, we all have some time to think about it, because I doubt I will be Clarking this in October.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 16, 2015 20:19:24 GMT -6
How are people feeling about this?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 16, 2015 20:23:11 GMT -6
I worry about the new clause in the OrgLaw. It makes a lot of gerrymandering-style corruption possible with a majority. We should put in a clause about what such regulations couldn't do.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 17, 2015 4:51:27 GMT -6
It makes a lot of gerrymandering-style corruption possible with a majority. We should put in a clause about what such regulations couldn't do. Did you have anything in mind? How can gerrymandering occur when we don't have any voting districts (besides the provinces)?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 17, 2015 8:46:59 GMT -6
Not that specifically, but what we're doing is that we're saying that statutes may regulate who is allowed to be a Cosa member, basically. I'm thinking in terms of our Orglaw committee... what broad principles should be put in here, so that this power can't be abused?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 17, 2015 16:20:13 GMT -6
Not that specifically, but what we're doing is that we're saying that statutes may regulate who is allowed to be a Cosa member, basically. I'm thinking in terms of our Orglaw committee... what broad principles should be put in here, so that this power can't be abused? How about this:
|
|
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 Oct 21, 2015 19:31:25 GMT -6
Look, Ián, as with the Royal Commission on the OrgLaw, AD's method is to find bogus legalistic reasons to oppose anything that would cause him or his partisan disadvantage. So do what I did and just ignore them, trusting in principles of majority rule. Newsflash: not EVERYTHING in the Ziu has to get the support of every party.
|
|