|
Post by Jack Fenton on Jul 4, 2008 9:39:38 GMT -6
I'm against, because when they vote for a party, they vote because of the people in the party. When a politician loses confidence in a party and switches, their voters usually share the feelings.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 4, 2008 10:17:04 GMT -6
(Capt Squid - you forgot to sign it)
|
|
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 Jul 4, 2008 10:58:20 GMT -6
This would have to be an OrgLaw amendment, because the OrgLaw says that MCs only lose their seats by resigning or failing to vote. See "Seatgate" in the glossary on the web site.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 5, 2008 9:33:57 GMT -6
I think the dual elective-form nature of the Ziu complicates this matter, but I am, nonetheless, against this.
As Iac says, if elected representatives of a party lose confidence in that party, they are right to represent that loss of confidence by leavig; and insomuch as at present several of their seats, at least, will be the results of their OWN vote, they would be misrepresenting their views by surrendering their seats (ths past election, it was something like 3 seats to a vote).
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 5, 2008 10:51:29 GMT -6
Sir Cresti is correct, this would need to be an amendment.
But I like the intent.
MCs are not independent of the parties. Their place in the Cosa is provided by the party which granted them seats.
Not necessarily. Voters tend to pick parties based on platforms, not personnel. To assume otherwise is not wise.
Nope. Again, the MC that would go renegade is the one that skews the desires of the voters. Consider the following: 21 people elect Party A. Party A choses MC Defector to hold seats for the party. In time, MC Defector changes his mind and no longer likes his party's view on a particular issue. He may not like his party's view on anything else (Totally begs the question: Why did Defector join the party in the first place. But that's another issue). But he is still free to vote his conscience and go against the party line and be the vote of dissonance. He may not like it, but that party, not himself, was elected/voted for. He could be the only person that vote for that party to have lost confidence. If he is able to strip the seats he holds away from Party A, then he disenfranchised 20 people and weakened the party that they voted for.
This amendment would keep people from "joining" or leaching onto a party just to get into the Cosa, only to later pick a fight with that party. They claim some moral superiority, go renegade with their seats, and weaken the party that THEY joined and steal the power that was granted to the party by the people.
If somebody is so disgusted with their party, then leave. But they should not be allowed to take seats with them. Let them see if another party will take a chance on them and grant them seats.
The recent musical chairs within the Cosa was frankly ridiculous. Parties win seats. MCs only represent the party that granted them seats. They should not be allowed to mess with the parties' seat count.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Fenton on Jul 5, 2008 11:14:32 GMT -6
But parties should be allowed to allow the runner-awayers to take their seats with them, at least.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 5, 2008 16:08:14 GMT -6
But parties should be allowed to allow the runner-awayers to take their seats with them, at least. I suppose. And then the brain-dead party should have their collective head examined for the reason they would surrender some of the influence for which they campaigned and won.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 16:52:13 GMT -6
I'm against, because when they vote for a party, they vote because of the people in the party. When a politician loses confidence in a party and switches, their voters usually share the feelings. Then those are sentiments that should be shared at the next general election, not something that an individual MC should take upon him or herself to do. If I vote for RUMP, it isn't so that MC So and So can take the seats awarded to RUMP and form his or her own party. To allow such is to deny me my fair representation.
|
|
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 Jul 5, 2008 19:31:44 GMT -6
Consider the following: 21 people elect Party A. Party A choses MC Defector to hold seats for the party. In time, MC Defector changes his mind and no longer likes his party's view on a particular issue. He may not like his party's view on anything else (Totally begs the question: Why did Defector join the party in the first place. But that's another issue). But he is still free to vote his conscience and go against the party line and be the vote of dissonance. He may not like it, but that party, not himself, was elected/voted for. He could be the only person that vote for that party to have lost confidence. If he is able to strip the seats he holds away from Party A, then he disenfranchised 20 people and weakened the party that they voted for. Consider a counter-example: A party forms, as parties are wont to do, as a coalition of people with compatible but not identical principles and objectives. The primary aims of this party are to ban tribbles and to subsidise the manufacture of widgets. About 60% of the party thinks the first goal is most important, and 40% thinks the second goal is most important. So they get together and draw up a platform whose cornerstones are its anti-tribble and pro-widget planks. Then, sometime after the election, the majority faction of the party decides that widget subsidies are drawing focus away from banning tribbles, and they never cared that much about widgets anyways. So, being a majority, they amend the party platform to strip out the pro-widget plank and tell the minority to deal with it. What is the minority faction in this party to do? Under current law, they can split off and form their own party. Under the proposed change, if they leave the party that has just screwed them, they lose their seats and the 40% of the people who voted for the party because they cared most about widgets get stripped of all representation.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 5, 2008 20:12:00 GMT -6
Consider a counter-example: A party forms, as parties are wont to do, as a coalition of people with compatible but not identical principles and objectives. The primary aims of this party are to ban tribbles and to subsidise the manufacture of widgets. About 60% of the party thinks the first goal is most important, and 40% thinks the second goal is most important. So they get together and draw up a platform whose cornerstones are its anti-tribble and pro-widget planks. Then, sometime after the election, the majority faction of the party decides that widget subsidies are drawing focus away from banning tribbles, and they never cared that much about widgets anyways. So, being a majority, they amend the party platform to strip out the pro-widget plank and tell the minority to deal with it. What is the minority faction in this party to do? Under current law, they can split off and form their own party. Under the proposed change, if they leave the party that has just screwed them, they lose their seats and the 40% of the people who voted for the party because they cared most about widgets get stripped of all representation. In that case they are free to fight the majority, within the party, as I mentioned as the voice of dissent. The party can't legally strip their seats because they won't tow the party line. They are free to vote against "their" party's legislation, propose their own, and work for a coalition outside of the party. This sort of unfortunate situation might happen, but I still think it's better than playing musical chairs within the Ziu and disenfranchise the voters that voted for the party, even if the party was two-faced and changed their platform mid-Cosa. Rest assured, I don't think that party would receive nearly the same number of votes the next time.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 6, 2008 15:04:27 GMT -6
If we allow a MC to strip a party of it's seats- by leaving that party, and going elsewhere...
Should we allow a Party to strip a person of their MC seats?
What if a MC consistently votes against both widgets AND tribbles, and refuses to support the Party Platform, and there fore the people that voted for the Party?
It seems only fair that if we are going to let the MC walk away with votes with no penalty , should we also let the Party defend themselves against rogue MC's ?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Fenton on Jul 6, 2008 15:26:04 GMT -6
If we allow a MC to strip a party of it's seats- by leaving that party, and going elsewhere... Should we allow a Party to strip a person of their MC seats? What if a MC consistently votes against both widgets AND tribbles, and refuses to support the Party Platform, and there fore the people that voted for the Party? It seems only fair that if we are going to let the MC walk away with votes with no penalty , should we also let the Party defend themselves against rogue MC's ? Eu assenteu.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 6, 2008 16:10:08 GMT -6
Brad, I can't respond in detail right now (business trip tomorrow, gotta pack):
BUT:
1) Respond to the matter of an MC giving up their own voted-in seats. In the present structure, this Bill/Amendment would remove that democratic representation. Until we have over 200 voters, everybody is effectively entitled to at LEAST one seat.
2) You talk about the person remaining in the party and saying what they will, doing what they will; which surely, if the only difference in behaviour is NOT leaving the party, is still "leeching" off influence/seats/votes won. So it makes no difference whether the person is in the party or not, except insomuch as the MC is forced to keep his conscience in abeyance.
3) It's also mentioned here that the foolish MC joined the party because they trusted in it, so they should put up with its decisions. What if the party changes its focus? And to change the matter round, the foolish party gave the seats to the MC, because they trusted in the MC's ability to represent the people, so why should THEY not put up with their decision?
(I think the Senats is an easier discussion than this, as a Senator is directly elected and so can claim a personal mandate to represent. Though given people generally vote along party lines in most nations, the individual rarely matters and so rarely can REALLY claim a personal mandate - but that is the custom. The custom in most systems is that the assigned representative retains the "seat" till the standard term runs out. A direct comparison is the European Parliament - regional list prop. rep. system, where a seatholder would not be expected to drop their seat on leaving a party. I'm not sure how Spain or Israel run it.)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 6, 2008 18:58:51 GMT -6
I believe MC Preston's comment is extremely insightful, and concur with it.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 6, 2008 21:30:14 GMT -6
But parties should be allowed to allow the runner-awayers to take their seats with them, at least. I suppose. And then the brain-dead party should have their collective head examined for the reason they would surrender some of the influence for which they campaigned and won. If though, the Party implodes because of internal strife- I can see how the Party might release all of their representatives from Party Affiliation. For example, if the Tories decide that they can no longer "hang together" and decide to abandon all familiar ties. Do they tell all MC's "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" , and tell all the MC's that they are ... no longer MC's? and they have x amount of votes, no longer cast in the remaining Clarks for that Cosa? Or, do they say to their MC's that they can go off and vote how they like, and good luck to them? I am ambivalent if we need to dictate how a Party handles a MC that no longer wants to be a member of the Party. But I do believe we need to allow each party to set up guidelines on how they want to handle it.
|
|