King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jul 17, 2008 8:59:49 GMT -6
Suppose we *were* to institute a system in which an MC loses his seats if he switches parties (applied either to all parties or to only some). Now suppose MC Tom, a member of the ABC party, wants to switch allegiance to the DEF party because he no longer agrees with ABC (or maybe never actually did). And suppose Tom doesn't want to give up his seats.
What's to stop him from simply announcing his intention to switch to the DEF at the end of the current Cosa, and meanwhile voting the DEF party line on everything, campaigning for the DEF, etc.?
"Ah," someone will say. "We'll let the ABC party actually *kick Tom out* if they don't like how he's voting, acting, speechifying." But if we allow that, if we have parties that can specify how MCs are to vote and reassign their seats if they don't vote the way they're told to, in what sense did Tom actually have any legislative power to begin with?
Under a system like that, if you want to get a piece of legislation passed, you won't try to persuade the MCs to vote for it. You'll go to the party leaders instead, and get *their* approval; the MCs' opinions won't count for much. They won't be legislators or representatives any more; they'll simply be the voting voices of the party leadership. Is that what we want?
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 9:38:15 GMT -6
At the same time, if parties are only a vehicle to a person obtaining votes, it loses something, does it not?
If we hold elections and assign seats to a party only to have the members promptly take them and become Independent, what is the point of our electoral process?
Why don't we then allow direct election of MCs and you can affiliate with any (or no) party? Think about America for a second. I can run as a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Socialist or whatever party I like, or I can run as an independent. Once in office, I can switch parties as often as I see fit and it has no effect. That is because the public elected an individual.
Now, if I cast my vote not for an individual, but for a party who will assign their seats to an individual, don't I want to know that the individual in question is going to be in general agreement with the party I voted for? The main arguments against this so far have been that "what if a party strays from its intended mission?" But I counter, what if an MC strays from the party's stated mission. My vote helped to assign those seats to the party, and my party assigned them to an individual accordingly. If that individual doesn't want to represent my views or the views of the party that gave him the seats in the first place, why shouldn't the party at least have the option of removing his seats?
I think you are all repeating the same slippery slope argument. If the party has control over the MC, then the MC will simply become a robot who merely tows the party line. But since it is the party line that we are voting for in the General Elections, I think that works out pretty well. That isn't to say that every single vote need be in agreement with the party, but let the parties determine how far is too far for an MC to stray before they either have to fall in line or lose their seats.
The MC's opinions will still count for a lot. A lot of the legislation passed is largely inconsequential to our overall function. Things like Memorial Days and renaming things and repealing old acts will still be left up to the discretion of the MC, but major changes like OrgLaw amendments and the like are things that we want our parties to be unified in.
If we don't want to give parties that kind of power then I'd say we need to rethink giving them the seats in the first place. If we want to power to be with the individual MC, then let the MCs run as individuals in the General Election and let political parties take a backseat.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 17, 2008 11:29:26 GMT -6
Or to keep the process for electing the Cosa proportionally representative, have each party publish the National List of those who will receive seats. Or something. It's pretty difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jul 17, 2008 11:35:59 GMT -6
I must agree with Tim here.
When I vote for a senator I am, in a sense, giving that person my approval. I believe that however he votes will be the way I would vote, and if he changes parties, I have still given him my trust that he will do what is right.
When I vote for the Cosa, I am voting for a party. I am giving that party my approval. I am giving them my trust that they will appoint the right people to be MCs. However, should that MC become a renegade, my party has every right to take his seats away from him. If another party wants to give him seats, that's fine with me. But if he goes and takes my party's seats and goes to another party that I have not given my approval to, that's just not fair.
Dréu
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 11:48:31 GMT -6
I think it worth noting....there is always potential for abuse from both sides. If we leave it the way it is, there is always the potential that someone will join a party just to take the seats and run. With the proposed legislation, there is always the possibility that a party will take back seats from an MC for a slight disagreement.
However, the legislation does not simply give the parties absolute authority. Rather, it gives parties the right to create regulations and have some form of enforcement authority over them. Want my prediction? If there are three parties and two of them strip an MC of their seats if they leave the party and the third does not, the third party will fail. Simply because without the ability to strip seats, a party has no way of policing the people the party handed seats to. Without that ability, the party simply will not last.
Allowing parties to remove seats from an MC is a move toward greater party stability.
When the Cosa has such a large number of independents, we need to start looking at how to make parties stronger. If an MC disagrees with a party now, it makes the most sense just to abandon it and form a new one or go independent. Under the proposed legislation, there would be more emphasis on reforming the party from within. Then, forming parties will be more of a last stop rather than a first move.
|
|
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 17, 2008 11:54:22 GMT -6
::blinks::
::blinks::
Dreu...what party do you belong to again?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 12:12:00 GMT -6
I think it worth noting....there is always potential for abuse from both sides. If we leave it the way it is, there is always the potential that someone will join a party just to take the seats and run. With the proposed legislation, there is always the possibility that a party will take back seats from an MC for a slight disagreement. However, the legislation does not simply give the parties absolute authority. Rather, it gives parties the right to create regulations and have some form of enforcement authority over them. Want my prediction? If there are three parties and two of them strip an MC of their seats if they leave the party and the third does not, the third party will fail. Simply because without the ability to strip seats, a party has no way of policing the people the party handed seats to. Without that ability, the party simply will not last. Allowing parties to remove seats from an MC is a move toward greater party stability. When the Cosa has such a large number of independents, we need to start looking at how to make parties stronger. If an MC disagrees with a party now, it makes the most sense just to abandon it and form a new one or go independent. Under the proposed legislation, there would be more emphasis on reforming the party from within. Then, forming parties will be more of a last stop rather than a first move. I still think you're giving the party way too much power here. By allowing the party to strip the MCs of votes, as the King pointed out, you're undermining independent voting by party members. There is no need for discussion anymore as the party leaders can issue mandates on how its members should vote. Moreover, this is leading to greater potential for 'backroom deals' which, I believe, is counter productive to Talossan interest. Although I'm against it, I can understand the "leaving your party lose your seats" part, even though I think we should leave it as it is or in a compromise, leave it up to the parties. Your system seems to be aimed at lowering the potential for new parties, the only way a MC could truly vote as they see fit would be to then form a new party, pay party dues, vote for their party, and assign themselves their own seats. For those of us who prefer to vote our conscience and feel that the party of which we are apart trust our conscience, that would be the only option to ensure true voting by MCs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 12:18:05 GMT -6
In that case, draft legislation that allows for the direct election of MCs. If you don't want to vote along party lines, get the seats on your own rather than relying on a party to give them to you. There is no undermining of independence here. Just because you vote against the party line does not mean you will be stripped of seats. It would be up to each individual party how far you would have to go to have your seats removed as it should be.
If you join a party bent on deposing the King and electing a Queen and then vote to retain the King, you are being unfair to the voters who gave seats to that party in the first place by voting against their will. Then, you want to keep the seats and do your own thing? Those are not your seats to vote your conscience on, those seats were given to the party by the voters. If you aren't going to represent the party and subsequently the voters, no, you should not be able to take the seats with you. Express your conscience on your own as much as you like, but don't use my vote for a party you turned your back on to build your soapbox.
|
|
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 17, 2008 12:19:07 GMT -6
Or to keep the process for electing the Cosa proportionally representative, have each party publish the National List of those who will receive seats. Or something. It's pretty difficult. If we were to do that, we might do well to return to a "Real Cosa" of 20 (or more?) seats. One of the chief benefits of the 200-seat Cosa is that it allows people who becomes citizens who immigrate between elections to dip their toes into the political waters right away by joining a party and being given a seat or two. You can't do that with list-based proportional representation. So if we go to lists we might as well go to one seat per MC as well. Besides accounting for new immigrants, our non-list system also accounts for the fact that it is not uncommon for people who might be on a party's list at the beginning of an election to go inactive and strike out of the Cosa by the end of the term. Some parties may be able to prepare for that by proposing a bigger list than the number of seats they are likely to win, but other parties (especially new and growing ones) may have a hard time doing 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 17, 2008 12:29:50 GMT -6
Although I'm against it, I can understand the "leaving your party lose your seats" part, even though I think we should leave it as it is or in a compromise, leave it up to the parties. The best compromise might be Xhorxh's proposed amendment, which basically leaves things up to the parties, but as regulated by law. So a normal law passed by the Ziu could require that, for example, in order for a party to take away seats from one of its MCs for voting against the party line, the vote must have been on something called for in the party's pre-election platform, and the party's whip must have notified the MCs that it was a mandatory vote. That way you can ensure (to some degree at least) that it's the MC who has shifted, and not the party. You could also provide that parties can only take away seats in excess of those elected by the MC personally (assuming the MC voted in the previous election) or provide that an MC is always entitled to take at least one seat with him (which seems fair as long as we have an electorate of fewer than 200 voters).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 12:35:14 GMT -6
Although I'm against it, I can understand the "leaving your party lose your seats" part, even though I think we should leave it as it is or in a compromise, leave it up to the parties. The best compromise might be Xhorxh's proposed amendment, which basically leaves things up to the parties, but as regulated by law. So a normal law passed by the Ziu could require that, for example, in order for a party to take away seats from one of its MCs for voting against the party line, the vote must have been on something called for in the party's pre-election platform, and the party's whip must have notified the MCs that it was a mandatory vote. That way you can ensure (to some degree at least) that it's the MC who has shifted, and not the party. You could also provide that parties can only take away seats in excess of those elected by the MC personally (assuming the MC voted in the previous election) or provide that an MC is always entitled to take at least one seat with him (which seems fair as long as we have an electorate of fewer than 200 voters). I really don't see any compromise on this issue, either one supports the strengths in having free thinking MCs who can vote as they see fit and how their conscience dictates or one supports Crowd Mentality. Say you have a few MCs that are against a bill, the Party could very easily take away the votes of those MCs and award them to those who are for the bill for that clark, what is to stop them from then reassigning the seats at any whim for any reason? Also, the party can then in turn can mandate everything as a mandatory vote. We're talking about the abuse of one MC that has caused all of this ruckus, let us bring up the greater potential for party abuse and less individual say that these acts will enshrine in law.
|
|
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 17, 2008 12:43:46 GMT -6
I think we should leave it as it is or in a compromise, leave it up to the parties. I really don't see any compromise on this issue Okay. I don't have a problem with the current law, personally. The compromise idea was yours. I was just elaborating on it, for the sake of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 12:44:55 GMT -6
Sorry if I came off as a bit harsh, I'm dealing with stupid people on the phone all day for work and I may have blown some steam your way Cresti.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 12:48:04 GMT -6
I think we should leave it as it is or in a compromise, leave it up to the parties. I really don't see any compromise on this issue Okay. I don't have a problem with the current law, personally. The compromise idea was yours. I was just elaborating on it, for the sake of discussion. hehe, good point. I don't see compromise on allowing parties the right to revoke seats for any reason. I can compromise a bit on the amount of seats taken away if they leave the party.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 12:57:05 GMT -6
The best compromise might be Xhorxh's proposed amendment, which basically leaves things up to the parties, but as regulated by law. So a normal law passed by the Ziu could require that, for example, in order for a party to take away seats from one of its MCs for voting against the party line, the vote must have been on something called for in the party's pre-election platform, and the party's whip must have notified the MCs that it was a mandatory vote. That way you can ensure (to some degree at least) that it's the MC who has shifted, and not the party. You could also provide that parties can only take away seats in excess of those elected by the MC personally (assuming the MC voted in the previous election) or provide that an MC is always entitled to take at least one seat with him (which seems fair as long as we have an electorate of fewer than 200 voters). I really don't see any compromise on this issue, either one supports the strengths in having free thinking MCs who can vote as they see fit and how their conscience dictates or one supports Crowd Mentality. Say you have a few MCs that are against a bill, the Party could very easily take away the votes of those MCs and award them to those who are for the bill for that clark, what is to stop them from then reassigning the seats at any whim for any reason? Also, the party can then in turn can mandate everything as a mandatory vote. We're talking about the abuse of one MC that has caused all of this ruckus, let us bring up the greater potential for party abuse and less individual say that these acts will enshrine in law. Simple, the proposed law would allow parties to take the seats away if an MC leaves the party, OR the party can opt NOT to take the seats away. So, if you are concerned about abuse of an individual MC, fine, s/he can go and join a party that does not take seats away or form a party of their own. If forming a party of their own, however, they will not walk directly in with seats from their last party, but they are free to run in the General Election and have their own seats assigned.
|
|