|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 8:48:55 GMT -6
I'm seeing a lot of talk regarding stripping seats from MCs who vote against party lines. This legislation does not mean to do that. This legislation is intended to simply say "Hey, if you want to formally leave your party, go for it, but you leave your seats behind." Why?
Those seats are not granted to individuals. We don't vote for individuals to take the seats, we vote for political parties. If I cast my vote for party ABC, I DID NOT cast that vote so that a renegade MC can take them with him as he joins party DEF or so that he or she may start Party XYZ, I want those seats to stay in party ABC and simply be reassigned to another member of party ABC.
Without such a safeguard, we are lacking a very basic stability. Political parties can crop up at any time and begin casting votes in the Cosa. Why do we even bother having General Elections if mid-way through the term three new parties are going to form themselves and be allowed to vote with seats they poached from parties who ran in the General Election.
Isn't that kind of like electing a President who decides mid-way through his 4 years that he wants to be the President of France and now we're part of France?
I'm sure I will have tons of feedback about that last statement. Let me clarify by saying this. If a party is straying from its mission, then they should lose seats in the next general election when people vote for other parties instead. Renegade MCs should not be able to just take their seats and walk out. If that is going to be how we run things, then please, please, please let's just change the system.
Presently we have a Parliamentary system (voting for parties instead of individuals) while employing elements from the U.S. System (voting for individuals who keep their seats even if they change party affiliation). We have to pick one system and run with it, if we try to pick and choose we simply give people enough freedom to create chaos.
|
|
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 9:31:40 GMT -6
I'm seeing a lot of talk regarding stripping seats from MCs who vote against party lines. This legislation does not mean to do that. This legislation is intended to simply say "Hey, if you want to formally leave your party, go for it, but you leave your seats behind." Why? Because Xhorxh drew up a bill that would address the party line issue in addition to the switching issue, Alexander suggested that he post the language in this thread since it was related, and Xhorxh did so. If I cast my vote for party ABC, I DID NOT cast that vote so that a renegade MC can take them with him as he joins party DEF or so that he or she may start Party XYZ Some voters basically do, though. At minimum, the very voters who are the switching MCs. And it's likely that there are other voters who become disaffected with ABC for the same reason that the XYZ "renegades" do. Why do we even bother having General Elections if mid-way through the term three new parties are going to form themselves and be allowed to vote with seats they poached from parties who ran in the General Election. I guess for the same reason the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, etc keep having elections even though some members of their legislatures occasionally switch parties mid-term. Isn't that kind of like electing a President who decides mid-way through his 4 years that he wants to be the President of France and now we're part of France? Not really. That would violate his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Deciding to switch parties within the U.S. would not. That is, Democratic, Republican, Whig, and Federalist presidents have all sworn that same oath. French presidents have not. If that is going to be how we run things, then please, please, please let's just change the system. It's not going to be how we run things. It's how we have run things. For years. Presently we have a Parliamentary system (voting for parties instead of individuals) while employing elements from the U.S. System (voting for individuals who keep their seats even if they change party affiliation). We have to pick one system and run with it, if we try to pick and choose we simply give people enough freedom to create chaos. Our system does not differ in this respect from plenty of other parliamentary systems (UK, Canada, New Zealand, etc). So this is not picking and choosing.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 10, 2008 8:56:22 GMT -6
Sharon and Peres would have been elected to parliament on a National List - and kept their seats after changing. International precedence for leaving the Cosa situ as it is.
And Brad, Brad, Brad. If you had been included in anyone's criticisms, I'd say your little joke were understandable; as it is, it misses the point entirely. Anyway, I'd argue that as Senators ARE directly elected, they should certainly be allowed to retain their seat even if they leave their party. No doubt at all. The Cosa, with its PR electoral system, is the question.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 10, 2008 11:11:45 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? I think those might work, indeed. Hm. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 18:39:21 GMT -6
Then I say again, that is an issue that we should take up in an election rather than allowing an individual MC to take it upon him/herself to right the wrong.
When the next general election rolls around, that MC is more than free to create a new party and attempt to win seats in the Cosa.
Right now, the problem has been largely contained. We have so few active people that even if one person wants to start a political party it is not unlikely that they will receive a few seats in the General Election. However, if and when we reach a point where MCs are representatives of citizens who are not MCs or Senators, doesn't anyone else feel that allowing an MC to take their seats with them when they leave is depriving those people of their vote?
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jul 10, 2008 19:22:28 GMT -6
Then I say again, that is an issue that we should take up in an election rather than allowing an individual MC to take it upon him/herself to right the wrong. When the next general election rolls around, that MC is more than free to create a new party and attempt to win seats in the Cosa. Right now, the problem has been largely contained. We have so few active people that even if one person wants to start a political party it is not unlikely that they will receive a few seats in the General Election. However, if and when we reach a point where MCs are representatives of citizens who are not MCs or Senators, doesn't anyone else feel that allowing an MC to take their seats with them when they leave is depriving those people of their vote?Yes but leave that decision up to the party. If the party allows it, that's their choice, and they would lose votes in the next GE from the voters who feel disenfranchised as a result of that policy.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 11, 2008 1:39:14 GMT -6
So we're now going for a "fix it before it happens, which it won't do in the immediate future" solution? And that fixing will disenfranchise many in the short to mid term.
Leave it to the party. Xhorxh's solution is more flexible, has better precedence and is less destructive to the present system's constant fluidity and creativity, and less harmful to the representation of voters.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 9:54:18 GMT -6
So we're now going for a "fix it before it happens, which it won't do in the immediate future" solution? And that fixing will disenfranchise many in the short to mid term. Leave it to the party. Xhorxh's solution is more flexible, has better precedence and is less destructive to the present system's constant fluidity and creativity, and less harmful to the representation of voters. Generally one does try to fix problems before they become bigger problems, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 10:25:36 GMT -6
So we're now going for a "fix it before it happens, which it won't do in the immediate future" solution? And that fixing will disenfranchise many in the short to mid term. Leave it to the party. Xhorxh's solution is more flexible, has better precedence and is less destructive to the present system's constant fluidity and creativity, and less harmful to the representation of voters. Generally one does try to fix problems before they become bigger problems, yes. But is this really a problem? The system isn't really broken.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 15:18:13 GMT -6
Well, we started out with a General Election that awarded seats to what, 2 or 3 parties? Now we have how many? We have independents and parties that consist of one person. Why don't we just switch to direct elections?
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jul 11, 2008 17:24:17 GMT -6
Well, we started out with a General Election that awarded seats to what, 2 or 3 parties? Now we have how many? We have independents and parties that consist of one person. Why don't we just switch to direct elections? Why not?
|
|
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 11, 2008 18:02:56 GMT -6
Because I'll beat all of you with a stick?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 12, 2008 7:25:48 GMT -6
Apart from Mick's violent ways, it doesn't seem like many folk MIND the fluidity. I certainly never called it a problem, though t's been presented as one.
I'd be willing to back Xhorxh's amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2008 7:49:47 GMT -6
Apart from Mick's violent ways, it doesn't seem like many folk MIND the fluidity. I certainly never called it a problem, though t's been presented as one. I'd be willing to back Xhorxh's amendment. I imagine most folks do not MIND the fluidity, probably because a fair chunk of our legislature consists of people who take full advantage of that fluidity. Why would any of them support a law that may restrict their ability to take their seats wherever they choose? If we want to give the power to the parties, I say let's do it. If people leave a party in droves taking their seats with them, then only that party can be blamed for a poorly written charter.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 12, 2008 8:05:00 GMT -6
Or at least, that party cannot complain, as it was of the belief that folk should be able to leave.
And I do like the name. I'll pay you to name my Bills in future.
|
|