Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 7, 2008 6:42:07 GMT -6
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.I was in doubt about how to handle this difficult issue, but I've finally made up my mind: each party should be allowed to set up its own guidelines. If you are interested in joining a party, check out its charter first and see if you really agree with at least 80 percent of that party's rules and regulations.
|
|
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 7, 2008 11:10:57 GMT -6
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. As Owen has pointed out, this creates the potential for a negative unintended consequence from this legislation: banning MCs from switching parties, while parties can't control the votes of their MCs, means parties can't control their message. It's hard to present a unified front to the electorate when you have a disaffected faction legally trapped inside the party but consistently voting against the party line. 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. As has been pointed out, it's not so easy to tell which proposal will result in "disenfranchising" more voters. A currently sitting MC usually holds 3 to 4 seats that he essentially elected himself to. 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? If we do that, why have individual MCs at all? They'd be nothing more than rubber stamps for party policy, with no individual discretion. Might as well just assign seats directly to parties and allow the parties as entities to cast the Cosa votes. I'm not sure how Spain or Israel run it. I don't know about Spain, but party-switching is common in Israel (think Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres leaving Likud and Labour, respectively, to form Kadima). It's also common in some other countries with proportional representation like Italy and South Africa. It's not unknown in the U.S. (Jim Jeffords' switch from Republican to independent cost the GOP control of the Senate in 2001, and a bunch of members of both houses of Congress switched from the Democrats to the Republicans after the 1994 elections), the U.K., and Canada. But I do believe we need to allow each party to set up guidelines on how they want to handle it. I was in doubt about how to handle this difficult issue, but I've finally made up my mind: each party should be allowed to set up its own guidelines. If you are interested in joining a party, check out its charter first and see if you really agree with at least 80 percent of that party's rules and regulations. This might be the best solution: Let parties choose. Of course, we have to plan for unintended consequences there, too. What happens if a bunch of people join a party that allows switching, then a majority faction tries to hijack the minority's seats by instituting strict party discipline and a ban on switching?
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 7, 2008 13:06:39 GMT -6
I was on vacation during much of this debate, and I'm sorry I missed it. I see that most of the objections I have to such a change have been mentioned. The CLP has provided us with some recent examples where requiring MC's to return their seats when the party undergoes changes would not work.
First, consider the situation after the election to the 36th, where once the election was concluded, a number of CLP MC's found themselves at odds with the CLP position on the important issue of the hereditary monarchy. Since the CLP was in the majority, I suppose the members could have voted Non on the VOC to force a new election and realign themselves then, but if the CLP had been a minority party, this would not be possible, and every time any party undergoes a split, we can't dissolve the Cosa and hold a new election -- Mick would have killed us about ten times, and that's just for the KFC's many turns from original recipe to all sorts of extra crispy.
The MC's also could have stayed CLP in name, but consistently voted against the stated positions of their party, which wouldn't seem to make much sense. Had the MC's who chose to leave the party been forced to return the seats for reassignment to others who remain in the CLP, a strong argument can be made (given our population-to-Cosa ratio, the argument is actually impossible to refute) that this would have put the block of CLP seats in a great disproportion to the number of persons committed to that party's stance on reëxamining the nature of our hereditary monarchy.
Second, consider that during the Clarks of the 37th Cosa, the CLP announced that it actually ceased to exist. What of those seats, then? If they were held by the (now suddenly defunct) party, and not the seatholders themselves, did they revert to...the Crown?...for reassignment.
Consider the KFC, even. How many times did we see MC's from that party announce a party-switch while no one knew who the KFC party leader even was (the most recent one having himself jumped ship)? If these MC's would have had to return their seats, no one knew who would be responsible for reassigning them, and I think we'd have seen a Clark come with a bunch of empty seats. Even Dreu, when he got back from Israel, wasn't sure he could reassign his own seats when he seemed to be the only KFC'er left.
Hooligan
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 7, 2008 14:13:20 GMT -6
.... If they were held by the (now suddenly defunct) party, and not the seatholders themselves, did they revert to... the Crown?... for reassignment. Hooligan In that case, the seats should be reassigned by the King.
|
|
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 7, 2008 21:46:36 GMT -6
HAHAHA! That's funny!
OK. I agree, a majority of seats held by only a few people within a party is not a good thing. But who is to say that it can't happen before would be MCs start playing musical chairs between parties? What happens if the party leader decides that all party members get one seat and he keeps the rest? Or that he keeps 80% and his buddy gets the other 20%? I don't remember reading anything preventing that from happening.
My whole goal is to allow the parties some protection against would-be MCs who are looking to participate in the legislative process, but have no intention of actually working with the party they're pretending to support. As I read the OrgLaw, parties are defenseless against unfaithful wanna be MCs. And this problem/situation probably is best left to the parties to decide with their internal policies. I just don't see how they can legally remove an MC for crawfishing their own party.
If someone can't stand on any party's platform in good conscience , then let them form their own party. Or work with the party on their platform to make it more palatable.
I'm not saying that party members are always going to agree 100% of the time. When they don't, it doesn't mean they need to jump ship and steal seats. Work together within the party, or form multi-partisan cooperation to accomplish goals. Just stop making the SoS re-write the seating chart every Clark!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 9:15:08 GMT -6
HAHAHA! That's funny! I'm not saying that party members are always going to agree 100% of the time. When they don't, it doesn't mean they need to jump ship and steal seats. Work together within the party, or form multi-partisan cooperation to accomplish goals. Just stop making the SoS re-write the seating chart every Clark! And what of those who had tried to work within the party and with the party platform but nothing came of it? Are they just suppose to wait it out? Take for instance Party A, which is a massive party made up of many different people. Some of whom fought hard and defended to put the party in the majority. However, as with all countries, new issues are constantly coming up and that same person may now finds him/herself at odds with their party, the same party they defended and have tried to contribute to. Say this happens after only a few clarks, and the person is no longer on par with their party, with the majority of the party not in line with this person's personal views. Said person has tried to work within the party to try and bring things more in line with their views but, in all fairness, there is little they now have in common with what they party they were apart of has become. They have earned the right by the work in their party to be allocated seats by the party and rather than consistently throwing egg on the face of their party by voting against it, they discuss their feelings openly with party members and inform them of their intention to leave. Should they not be able to retrain their seats that were allocated to them? Would it not be counter productive to the person and their views to be forced to relinquish their seats thus having no say in the government? Moving on, how would one know if the new issues facing Talossa, which the party has taken a stance on, is what the same stance the majority of Talossa feels? As pointed out, we can't just up and have a new election anytime there are rifts in a party. Another point, what if the party leaders are completely out of line with the majority of the party. If the leaders can take away seats or if MCs can't retain their seats, the will of the party leaders could overpower the individual power of the MCs, thus undermining the entire democratic process of the Ziu. By allowing them to leave and retain their seats or vote against the party without fear of reprisal (i.e. revocation of allocated seats), it keeps the party transparent to its members and allows for the fluidity as well as individuality of member opinions and MC votes.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 8, 2008 9:52:40 GMT -6
As requested by the honorable Senator Alex Davis, I'm posting here the text of my amendment so you can compare it with this bill's text:
"The False Friends Amendment
WHEREAS it is necessary to put an end to political mess;
WHEREAS it is necessary to preserve each party’s rights;
WHEREAS I have no time for too many “whereases”,
I hereby propose that the Organic Law, Article VIII, Section 4 be changed as follows:
Current text: “Each person holding a seat is a correspondent representative known as a "Member of the Cosâ" (MC). MCs may not be removed from office except by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King. An MC vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or if he resigns from office or dies. Any seats left unassigned at the end of the first Clark of the government are considered vacant.”
New text: “Each person holding a seat is a correspondent representative known as a "Member of the Cosâ" (MC). An MC automatically vacates his seats if he fails to vote on two consecutive Clarks, or dies. MCs may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote by the Cosâ and approval by the King, or by withdrawal of their mandate by their party as permitted by law and by party regulation. It is up to the parties: a) to decide whether to let an MC take his seats with him or not in case he leaves the party; b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform. Any seats left unassigned at the end of the first Clark of the government are considered vacant and shall be filled by the King.”
THEREFORE the Ziu hereby approves this amendment and transmits it to the people for ratification.
Uréu q'estadra sa
Xhorxh Asmour [MC,CCCP]
Explanation:
"b) to take away seats from an MC who votes against key legislation called for by the party's platform."
That doesn't mean you will be kept from voting following your conscience, but if you have joined the party and agreed with the party's platform, you must accordingly vote for the KEY LEGISLATION it calls for. You may, however, vote totally according to your conscience on matters that are not specifically mentioned there as being inherent to the party line."
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 8, 2008 12:34:32 GMT -6
This would seem to be essentially a disagreement on the basic role of parties in what is mostly a very grey area of current law. Clearly, we need to come out of this discussion with an answer.
Some legislators, like MC Toctviac'hteir, feel that parties should have almost no effective role at all - he suggests that parties should not have the power to take away seats, but that MCs should be able to take their seats if they decide to leave a party. I agree that this would contribute to "fluidity," but that is because this would make any political party no more than a momentary agreement.
MC Asmourescu's amendment, however, tends the opposite direction - it would strips MCs of their votes should that MC depart the party.
MC Asmour's "The False Friends Amendment" goes even further, by giving to party leaders total control over the seats of an MC: the leaders can take away the seats at any time, or allow an MC to take them with him.
So the question is: where along this spectrum of party power do we want Talossan parties?
I would first call my fellow legislators to consider the recent past. MC Toctviac'hteir gave a thinly-veiled account of what he feels to be his own history in the RUMP, by way of arguing that MCs should never lose their seats because of their party mandate or lack thereof - but he does, in fact, still have his seats. And MC Asmour's party, the CCCP, currently has a larger number of votes in the Cosa than the voters gave it, because MCs from another party joined and brought their seats with them - seats they would not have if their original party had stripped them from those MCs.
The actual fact of the matter is that parties are generally driven by a decent respect for a diversity of views and by a desire for a good public image to amicably resolve seat conflicts with departing MCs. You may decide for yourself the exact amount of respect or PR that goes into the decision, depending on your own cynicism. And that is why we have generally had a good outcome from such conflicts - an outcome that I think most will agree generally reflects what are probably the desires of the electorate.
To put it simply: it works.
Accordingly, we should enshrine the process in law and make it work even better - the way it currently does. Rather than filling in this grey area with restrictions, let us give parties free reign to do as they feel bound to do by public service in the public's eye.
This will compel MCs to be courteous and reasonable in their objections, if they wish to be seen as justified when they ask to retain their seats on their departure. We want dissenters to be able to set their truth down and say boldly, "These are my views and those of the people who voted for us, no matter what the party says."
It will allow parties to have some actual meaning and force, so that membership in a party means something. We want party members to be able to emblazon their party on their lapel and say proudly, "This is my party. It stands for something, and enforces that stance."
I have been of the opinion that Talossans solve most of the problems around here, not laws. And I think that can be true in this instance, as well.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 8, 2008 14:35:49 GMT -6
Wake up, Alex. Everywhere in the world today most people follow their own impulses and desires, most of times regardless of consequences. Every society or community needs laws and regulations. If they weren't necessary, the OrgLaw itself wouldn't exist and government would be totally useless. Being careful is better than complaining after losing a leg.
|
|
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 8, 2008 21:51:56 GMT -6
Said person has tried to work within the party to try and bring things more in line with their views but, in all fairness, there is little they now have in common with what they party they were apart of has become. They have earned the right by the work in their party to be allocated seats by the party and rather than consistently throwing egg on the face of their party by voting against it, they discuss their feelings openly with party members and inform them of their intention to leave. Should they not be able to retrain their seats that were allocated to them? Would it not be counter productive to the person and their views to be forced to relinquish their seats thus having no say in the government? Is it really throwing egg on the face of the party? As long as a rational reason was given along with a dissenting vote, I can't really remember when a party would attack its member for voting their conscience. Break: Unless of course you're a Senator and any dissent is completely unacceptable, no matter how rational the decision.
|
|
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 8, 2008 21:53:42 GMT -6
Wake up, Alex. Everywhere in the world today most people follow their own impulses and desires, most of times regardless of consequences. Every society or community needs laws and regulations. If they weren't necessary, the OrgLaw itself wouldn't exist and government would be totally useless. Being careful is better than complaining after losing a leg. Um, I think Senator Davis *IS* in favor of a law. Unless I'm misreading his last couple of paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 22:06:29 GMT -6
Said person has tried to work within the party to try and bring things more in line with their views but, in all fairness, there is little they now have in common with what they party they were apart of has become. They have earned the right by the work in their party to be allocated seats by the party and rather than consistently throwing egg on the face of their party by voting against it, they discuss their feelings openly with party members and inform them of their intention to leave. Should they not be able to retrain their seats that were allocated to them? Would it not be counter productive to the person and their views to be forced to relinquish their seats thus having no say in the government? Is it really throwing egg on the face of the party? As long as a rational reason was given along with a dissenting vote, I can't really remember when a party would attack its member for voting their conscience. Break: Unless of course you're a Senator and any dissent is completely unacceptable, no matter how rational the decision. Why would any break from a Senator be completely unacceptable?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 9, 2008 2:26:15 GMT -6
Wake up, Alex. Everywhere in the world today most people follow their own impulses and desires, most of times regardless of consequences. Every society or community needs laws and regulations. If they weren't necessary, the OrgLaw itself wouldn't exist and government would be totally useless. Being careful is better than complaining after losing a leg. Indeed. Thus why I said we should "enshrine the process in law and make it work even better - the way it currently does." Give the parties the power to decide their own regulations on this matter - to remove their members from their seats if they so choose, based on criteria each party can decide for itself. Neither proposed law currently satisfied me as written, but I think we can keep working to resolve that.
|
|
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 9, 2008 7:51:07 GMT -6
Give the parties the power to decide their own regulations on this matter - to remove their members from their seats if they so choose, based on criteria each party can decide for itself. Neither proposed law currently satisfied me as written, but I think we can keep working to resolve that. How about the change to the False Friends Amendment that I proposed in that bill's thread?
|
|
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 9, 2008 7:52:41 GMT -6
Why would any break from a Senator be completely unacceptable? I think he's making a point about all the flak the Senäts has been catching lately for not always voting in line with the Cosa.
|
|