|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jul 17, 2008 15:30:50 GMT -6
::blinks:: ::blinks:: Dreu...what party do you belong to again? Touché, good captain. I must admit my feelings were changed to their present state after I left the LRT.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 16:13:58 GMT -6
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. I must admit, I'm a bit confused here. I don't know whether you're advocating giving the party the right to take away seats for MCs that leave the party or for the party to have the right to take away seats at its own discretion. Thank you in advance for taking the time to clarify your position and your goal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 16:52:14 GMT -6
I'm advocating giving the party the right to define when (or if) the party would remove seats, be that for leaving the party or going against the party in a major way.
I like Sir Cresti's example of conditions which might cause one to lose their seat. For example, limiting the removal of an MC to a situation where a vote is mandatory, that mandatory vote is preceded by a notice from the whip that the vote is mandatory etc etc.
My view is that MCs will still maintain their independence but on certain issues, the types of things where, say, the party simply will not budge, if a person votes against the party, they SHOULD lose their seats. They are free to join another party and have seats assigned to them there. That doesn't mean MCs lose their autonomy or their right to vote their conscience. Rather, it allows parties to clearly define their mission and make sure MCs are adhering to the basics of that mission.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 17:51:09 GMT -6
I disagree, the party could simply make "everything" mandatory thus forcing the people to never be independent for fear of losing their seats. If a person votes against the party, they SHOULDN'T lose their seats. The party has entrusted their judgment and thus assigned them seats, if the party will not budge and the act goes strongly against a person's conscience, they shouldn't be penalized for voting that way. Sometimes, the party leaders aren't in line with the majority of the party. Your proposal essentially creates an elite group of people who would be able to control the government. The only way for a MC to be truly independent would to do as I suggested, create their own one person party, vote for themselves, and appoint seats to themselves. Your suggestions completely ends the true independence of MCs.
As far as the party revoking seats for someone leaving, I really don't see a problem with the current system.
|
|
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 17, 2008 18:10:05 GMT -6
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. The system already limits new party growth. At least between elections.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 19:31:58 GMT -6
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. The system already limits new party growth. At least between elections. Elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 17, 2008 19:43:01 GMT -6
I disagree, the party could simply make "everything" mandatory thus forcing the people to never be independent for fear of losing their seats. If a person votes against the party, they SHOULDN'T lose their seats. The party has entrusted their judgment and thus assigned them seats, if the party will not budge and the act goes strongly against a person's conscience, they shouldn't be penalized for voting that way. Sometimes, the party leaders aren't in line with the majority of the party. Your proposal essentially creates an elite group of people who would be able to control the government. The only way for a MC to be truly independent would to do as I suggested, create their own one person party, vote for themselves, and appoint seats to themselves. Your suggestions completely ends the true independence of MCs. As far as the party revoking seats for someone leaving, I really don't see a problem with the current system. Your interpretation of the new rules is faulty, I believe. You suggest that party leaders might be mavericks and enforce their own will on the party as a whole, and that allowing parties to choose their own rules on whether or not MCs can have seats stripped or penalized would result in the few party leaders "controlling government." Taking the last party first, even if the leaders of the parties were in such a position it would hardly be "controlling government." They would have a strong control of the Cosa, one part of our bicameral legislature, which is in itself on part of our whole government of separated powers. Let's not get crazy here. Secondly, you quickly presume a number of things. You assume that every party will decide their MCs can't be independent and can have their seats stripped. You also assume that party leaders will wield dictatorial authority and might inflict their personal agendas on the group as a whole. All of these do not bear a very realistic view of the matter. We have people who split off to form new parties on astonishingly minor issues (or even non-issues) with high frequency. Seldom does a term go by without at least one new party forming or dissolving. Is it reasonable to think that parties will not also differentiate on these issues, which are actually incredibly important? With wider latitude for action given to parties, they can actually choose their own way, which is generally a good thing. If the CRO decides that MC Briga is the dictator and sets all party policy under their charter, then other CRO members might create their own party in protest or join a party without such a policy. In fact, I think such a result would be likely. If the independent-minded LRT decides that all its MCs can lose their seats if they vote against party policy on an issue, then the LRT members who dislike that can take similar action. To forestall this, and not being foolish enough to be ignorant of such sentiment, the LRT would be more likely to decide that seat assignments are irrevocable. It seems to me that greater political diversity and enhanced party dialog is only going to be a good thing. I do agree that the only way for an MC to be "truly independent" is to be a one-person party. But people don't vote for MCs, they vote for parties. MCs aren't supposed to be "truly independent."
|
|
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 17, 2008 20:33:10 GMT -6
The system already limits new party growth. At least between elections. Elaborate. The PP party was just reminded that they're not really an official party until the next election. They might be campaigning right now, but they're not represented in the current Cosa. New parties can't just pop up the day after or the month after a General Election. They have to wait until the next one, assuming they register appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 21:23:04 GMT -6
The PP party was just reminded that they're not really an official party until the next election. They might be campaigning right now, but they're not represented in the current Cosa. New parties can't just pop up the day after or the month after a General Election. They have to wait until the next one, assuming they register appropriately. Actually, a party can pop up the day or month after a general election. All they have to do is register with the SOS, the party dues are paid so the party can stand in election. The only reason the PP is not an official party is because they haven't registered with the SOS, not because they haven't paid their dues and/or have to wait until the next cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 21:45:14 GMT -6
I disagree, the party could simply make "everything" mandatory thus forcing the people to never be independent for fear of losing their seats. If a person votes against the party, they SHOULDN'T lose their seats. The party has entrusted their judgment and thus assigned them seats, if the party will not budge and the act goes strongly against a person's conscience, they shouldn't be penalized for voting that way. Sometimes, the party leaders aren't in line with the majority of the party. Your proposal essentially creates an elite group of people who would be able to control the government. The only way for a MC to be truly independent would to do as I suggested, create their own one person party, vote for themselves, and appoint seats to themselves. Your suggestions completely ends the true independence of MCs. As far as the party revoking seats for someone leaving, I really don't see a problem with the current system. Your interpretation of the new rules is faulty, I believe. You suggest that party leaders might be mavericks and enforce their own will on the party as a whole, and that allowing parties to choose their own rules on whether or not MCs can have seats stripped or penalized would result in the few party leaders "controlling government." Taking the last party first, even if the leaders of the parties were in such a position it would hardly be "controlling government." They would have a strong control of the Cosa, one part of our bicameral legislature, which is in itself on part of our whole government of separated powers. Let's not get crazy here. Secondly, you quickly presume a number of things. You assume that every party will decide their MCs can't be independent and can have their seats stripped. You also assume that party leaders will wield dictatorial authority and might inflict their personal agendas on the group as a whole. All of these do not bear a very realistic view of the matter. We have people who split off to form new parties on astonishingly minor issues (or even non-issues) with high frequency. Seldom does a term go by without at least one new party forming or dissolving. Is it reasonable to think that parties will not also differentiate on these issues, which are actually incredibly important? With wider latitude for action given to parties, they can actually choose their own way, which is generally a good thing. If the CRO decides that MC Briga is the dictator and sets all party policy under their charter, then other CRO members might create their own party in protest or join a party without such a policy. In fact, I think such a result would be likely. If the independent-minded LRT decides that all its MCs can lose their seats if they vote against party policy on an issue, then the LRT members who dislike that can take similar action. To forestall this, and not being foolish enough to be ignorant of such sentiment, the LRT would be more likely to decide that seat assignments are irrevocable. It seems to me that greater political diversity and enhanced party dialog is only going to be a good thing. I do agree that the only way for an MC to be "truly independent" is to be a one-person party. But people don't vote for MCs, they vote for parties. MCs aren't supposed to be "truly independent." To respond to each part of your post: you are correct, I did forget about the Senate. However, in the worst case scenario, given the esteem Senators are held in, they could very well be part of the party leadership. A majority would be easier to obtain. (Being as the worst case MC sabotaging and going against his/her party argument is being presented.) I did not say every party would follow such a road and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I said it would be possible that the party would make everything mandatory. Where is this high frequency of parties AD? The LRT fell apart because of their own reasons, and other parties are beginning to fracture for various reasons. As was pointed out to me a few months ago, just because you think something is a minor or non issue doesn't mean the other person does. Some issues may be considered major by some and not important to others. For example, I viewed the Saffron Act as a non-Talossan issue, many believe it was. Who was actually right? In my own personal experience, I left a party because I was no longer in line with that party, for my own issues, which you may not approve of, but they were still my issues. Your example you gave about the CRO, I believe, works against your argument. If they did decide that the party leader was a dictator they wouldn't be in power to do much until the next term. Especially if it happened early on. Certainly not good. In the worst case scenario, as I stated earlier, back room deals would start to occur as people may have a fear of speaking out in fear of reprisals for an authoritative style party leadership. Or one of these "mandatory" issues, which one may lose their seats for, could be something that is a "new" issue that goes complete against the core of that MC. I see this as a potential for stronger parties, which, I will concede, does have its advantages, but in the long run, leaves a lot more greater opportunity for disaster than our current system. It is as if to say: let us replace a system that could go wrong with a system that has greater potential of being a complete disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 20, 2008 19:22:14 GMT -6
I thank the Member of Cosa for his comments, and hope he will oblige me a bit longer with consideration of my rebuttals. To respond to each part of your post: you are correct, I did forget about the Senate. However, in the worst case scenario, given the esteem Senators are held in, they could very well be part of the party leadership. A majority would be easier to obtain. (Being as the worst case MC sabotaging and going against his/her party argument is being presented.) I suppose, but I can imagine worst-case scenarios for any conceivable arrangement. My point was just that it was entirely inaccurate to describe the Cosa as the whole of government, when it is part of one branch of it. I did not say every party would follow such a road and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I said it would be possible that the party would make everything mandatory. It certainly would be possible. Lots of things are possible. I have said why I think it is unlikely that every party would do this. Do you have any reply to that substantive argument about the greater latitude given to parties and increased political diversity? Where is this high frequency of parties AD? The LRT fell apart because of their own reasons, and other parties are beginning to fracture for various reasons. As was pointed out to me a few months ago, just because you think something is a minor or non issue doesn't mean the other person does. Some issues may be considered major by some and not important to others. For example, I viewed the Saffron Act as a non-Talossan issue, many believe it was. Who was actually right? In my own personal experience, I left a party because I was no longer in line with that party, for my own issues, which you may not approve of, but they were still my issues. I said that seldom does a term go by without a new party or an old one dissolving... are you seriously disputing that, after listing several examples yourself, one of which is you? I'm not sure exactly what you intend here... are you trying to say that you think parties would not potentially split over issues of permanence of MC seats, or what? You are going to have to clarify your response here. Your example you gave about the CRO, I believe, works against your argument. If they did decide that the party leader was a dictator they wouldn't be in power to do much until the next term. Especially if it happened early on. Certainly not good. In the worst case scenario, as I stated earlier, back room deals would start to occur as people may have a fear of speaking out in fear of reprisals for an authoritative style party leadership. Or one of these "mandatory" issues, which one may lose their seats for, could be something that is a "new" issue that goes complete against the core of that MC. Elections are how party power changes in a democracy, so yes, there would have to be an election for change. But presumably, going into the next election a party would make things clear on where they stand, or face resulting and valid criticism about that. I'm not sure how this is "not good;" could you elaborate a little more about that? Do you think that the CRO could go into the election without a policy and not be derided by competing parties? In the worst case scenario, the Seneschal could kidnap MC Briga's dog and hold it for ransom until he got the votes he wanted. But that is not likely to happen. Nor does it seem terribly likely that the highly vocal and schismatic Talossan leadership will suddenly be cowed for fear of leaving their party. Does that seem likely to you, S:reu Independent MC? I see this as a potential for stronger parties, which, I will concede, does have its advantages, but in the long run, leaves a lot more greater opportunity for disaster than our current system. It is as if to say: let us replace a system that could go wrong with a system that has greater potential of being a complete disaster. It has more opportunities for disaster because there is enormously more opportunity period. Allowing parties greater control of their message to better serve their electorate, or allowing them to adopt policies that mimic the current ones, or allowing them even greater liberality... I suppose this freedom has its risks. All reforms that allow greater freedom have risks. In this case, I think the payoff will be much greater than any number of bizarre worst-case scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 7:33:45 GMT -6
I thank the Member of Cosa for his comments, and hope he will oblige me a bit longer with consideration of my rebuttals. To respond to each part of your post: you are correct, I did forget about the Senate. However, in the worst case scenario, given the esteem Senators are held in, they could very well be part of the party leadership. A majority would be easier to obtain. (Being as the worst case MC sabotaging and going against his/her party argument is being presented.) I suppose, but I can imagine worst-case scenarios for any conceivable arrangement. My point was just that it was entirely inaccurate to describe the Cosa as the whole of government, when it is part of one branch of it. It certainly would be possible. Lots of things are possible. I have said why I think it is unlikely that every party would do this. Do you have any reply to that substantive argument about the greater latitude given to parties and increased political diversity? I said that seldom does a term go by without a new party or an old one dissolving... are you seriously disputing that, after listing several examples yourself, one of which is you? I'm not sure exactly what you intend here... are you trying to say that you think parties would not potentially split over issues of permanence of MC seats, or what? You are going to have to clarify your response here. Elections are how party power changes in a democracy, so yes, there would have to be an election for change. But presumably, going into the next election a party would make things clear on where they stand, or face resulting and valid criticism about that. I'm not sure how this is "not good;" could you elaborate a little more about that? Do you think that the CRO could go into the election without a policy and not be derided by competing parties? In the worst case scenario, the Seneschal could kidnap MC Briga's dog and hold it for ransom until he got the votes he wanted. But that is not likely to happen. Nor does it seem terribly likely that the highly vocal and schismatic Talossan leadership will suddenly be cowed for fear of leaving their party. Does that seem likely to you, S:reu Independent MC? I see this as a potential for stronger parties, which, I will concede, does have its advantages, but in the long run, leaves a lot more greater opportunity for disaster than our current system. It is as if to say: let us replace a system that could go wrong with a system that has greater potential of being a complete disaster. It has more opportunities for disaster because there is enormously more opportunity period. Allowing parties greater control of their message to better serve their electorate, or allowing them to adopt policies that mimic the current ones, or allowing them even greater liberality... I suppose this freedom has its risks. All reforms that allow greater freedom have risks. In this case, I think the payoff will be much greater than any number of bizarre worst-case scenarios. Before I even respond, one thing kept ringing through my head. You are claiming this is to create greater political diversity. That couldn't be further from the truth, quite the opposite in fact. You're creating a system that will ensure block voting, your vocabulary is impressive AD, but I think you're failing to understand the word diversity. Diversity is not forcing everyone to agree on something with fear of reprisal. My question I asked you was: Where is this great high frequency of new parties. In your response, you jumped to the next line from what I was referring, I will post what you wrote verbatim: We have people who split off to form new parties on astonishingly minor issues (or even non-issues) with high frequency. Again, I ask you AD, Where is this high Frequency? When my questions are answered, I will be more than happy to answer yours.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 21, 2008 9:09:25 GMT -6
In your response, you jumped to the next line from what I was referring, I will post what you wrote verbatim: We have people who split off to form new parties on astonishingly minor issues (or even non-issues) with high frequency. Again, I ask you AD, Where is this high Frequency? When my questions are answered, I will be more than happy to answer yours. I don't have my pocket calculator with me right now, but there have surely been a lot of people switching parties because of "astonishingly minor issues", as S:reu Davis pointed. Giving the parties enough power to refrain some of their members' giant egos a little would allow many people to grow more mature politically by thinking twice before saying or doing things they will regret in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 9:12:56 GMT -6
In your response, you jumped to the next line from what I was referring, I will post what you wrote verbatim: We have people who split off to form new parties on astonishingly minor issues (or even non-issues) with high frequency. Again, I ask you AD, Where is this high Frequency? When my questions are answered, I will be more than happy to answer yours. I don't have my pocket calculator with me right now, but there have surely been a lot of people switching parties because of "astonishingly minor issues", as S:reu Davis pointed. Giving the parties enough power to refrain some of their members' giant egos a little would allow many people to grow more mature politically by thinking twice before saying or doing things they will regret in the future. Do you, Xhorxh, presume to judge what is and isn't a minor issue to another? Do me a favour Xhorxh, post all the parties that have started over these "so-called" minor issues, and also list the issue for which they split... Thanks!
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jul 21, 2008 11:50:40 GMT -6
Please don't feel I'm trying to shun you, V, but let's make the story short... I think everything that had to be discussed is in this thread for everyone to see. Let people decide by themselves, please!
|
|