|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 10, 2008 9:12:14 GMT -6
Having had the legality of a party having rules regarding how its members hold seats crop up with the LRT Charter, the civil law involved would, surely, be Contract Law. If one agrees to a party's rules, you are forewarned of the consequences of later actions. However, if constitutionally, these rules do not mesh with the way Parliament operates, the rules are overruled themselves.
So the decision to make is: how important are the parties?
Now, unless we reform the Cosa into a true List system, or even move it to multi-member constituencies, it is a nightmare, I'd say, deciding one way or the other if the OrgLaw should be changed so as to allow parties to strip Cosa seats.
The Senats, operating differently, and being directly elected, can hardly be seconded to party rules; there's no precedent I know of in any liberal democracy.
I also dislike the name of this proposed Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 8:23:34 GMT -6
Viteu....I'd say there is an easy fix to your discomfort. Don't join a party that demands you surrender your seats if you leave the party. Those who are opposed to such a rule will simply be able to join (or form) a party that allows you to take the seats freely. If you sign up for party abc knowing that leaving will cause you to lose your seats, then perhaps party def is more your speed. Conversely, if you are perfectly fine with the party being able to remove those seats, then stick with party abc. This simply allows parties to do it, that doesn't mean they will, that doesn't mean they will be successful in their attempt to enforce such a regulation (since people may just form new parties without it). What it does do, is provide parties with a greater sense of control over their internal workings, whichever that particular party leans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 22:00:26 GMT -6
Just as the opportunity for a person to go through the work to get awarded seats by a party and then run away with the seats is there, doesn't mean they're going to do it. Outside of an incident with the LRT, which was an isolated incident and did not happen the way I just described (or has been presented), I find this as highly unlikely. The system isn't broke.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 6:56:35 GMT -6
Viteu....we have a good chunk of MCs who are independents, I'd say that means we need to rethink how we do operate political parties.
Just remember, you can't run as an independent in the GE.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 7:26:01 GMT -6
Tim,
We do not have a good chunk of MCs who are independent. We have a handful who are left over from a party that collapsed on itself, not from the way we handle parties, but from their own problems as a party.
So again, the system isn't broken. We can't just up and change everything because of a party implodes on itself and leads to a few independent MCs.
And anyone can run as an independent, it'll just cost you a 50 word statement, and about $20US , voting for yourself, and allocating yourself the seats.
|
|
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 18, 2008 7:48:28 GMT -6
Um...then you are a Party.
maybe an INDEPENDENT Party, but you are still a political party.
We don't vote for individuals during the GE, we vote for Parties.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 7:51:54 GMT -6
Well true, Mick. It's a kind of loophole to run as an independent. If a person likes what your one man party is saying, and they know you're going to be the only MC, they are essentially voting for you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 7:56:37 GMT -6
Hmm....sounds a lot like you support direct elections then....
If the system isn't broken, why then are you finding "loopholes" around it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 8:02:05 GMT -6
Hmm....sounds a lot like you support direct elections then.... If the system isn't broken, why then are you finding "loopholes" around it? I'm not, the current system doesn't need me to find loopholes. Your system would. To be clear, the only reason why I even "discovered" this loophole was because of these proposed changes (the false friends and move your feet.) I don't sit here and think "hmmmm, how can I get one over on the talossan gov't today." lol, :-P Every system is going to have its problems, every system is going to have workarounds. I've thoughtfully considered what your proposing and feel that, for me, I'd much rather deal with what we have rather than changing it to what you propose. But, that is JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 8:44:31 GMT -6
Just as the opportunity for a person to go through the work to get awarded seats by a party and then run away with the seats is there, doesn't mean they're going to do it. Outside of an incident with the LRT, which was an isolated incident and did not happen the way I just described (or has been presented), I find this as highly unlikely. The system isn't broke. First of all, all me to play grammar police, "the system isn't broken" Now, onto bigger and better things. It is kind of hard to claim that such a situation is unlikely when nearly a quarter of our Cosa is comprised of independent MCs. By strengthening a party we make sure that they do not implode as LRT did. If the party holds the seats and MCs wish to remain MCs, they will work to reform the party from within. The very same charters that would allow a party to retain seats if an MC leaves the party is the same charter that could institute ways for dissatisfied MCs to resolve their issues with party leadership, or even change that leadership altogether. LRT did not "implode" because it was part of a fully functioning system. It "imploded" because there was no reason to sit around and try to fix things since it was much easier to simply walk away with your seats and ride out the rest of the term as an independent. And you WILL need to find a loophole in the system if you hope to be in the next Cosa since you cannot run as an independent. So, for the next GE, you will have to join another party or the Independents can get together and form an "Independent Party." But if a person can just walk away from any party with their seats, what is the motivation to stay? Whether your reason for departure is political, personal or you just want to be a rebel, you can walk away with seats no questions asked. I fail to see how this proposed system would require a "loophole", Viteu. All it is doing is allowing parties to determine IF an MC will lose seats for losing and under what conditions an MC could lose them for going against the party. If you are so darned concerned about abuse then form the "Willie Nillie Party" and say that you keep your seats no matter what you do and you can't lose your seats for going against the party, that would also be your right as a party under the proposed legislation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 8:47:47 GMT -6
Just as the opportunity for a person to go through the work to get awarded seats by a party and then run away with the seats is there, doesn't mean they're going to do it. Outside of an incident with the LRT, which was an isolated incident and did not happen the way I just described (or has been presented), I find this as highly unlikely. The system isn't broke. First of all, all me to play grammar police, "the system isn't broken" Only if I can too: allow me to play grammar police. :-P
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 9:15:13 GMT -6
Just as the opportunity for a person to go through the work to get awarded seats by a party and then run away with the seats is there, doesn't mean they're going to do it. Outside of an incident with the LRT, which was an isolated incident and did not happen the way I just described (or has been presented), I find this as highly unlikely. The system isn't broke. First of all, all me to play grammar police, "the system isn't broken" Now, onto bigger and better things. It is kind of hard to claim that such a situation is unlikely when nearly a quarter of our Cosa is comprised of independent MCs. By strengthening a party we make sure that they do not implode as LRT did. If the party holds the seats and MCs wish to remain MCs, they will work to reform the party from within. The very same charters that would allow a party to retain seats if an MC leaves the party is the same charter that could institute ways for dissatisfied MCs to resolve their issues with party leadership, or even change that leadership altogether. LRT did not "implode" because it was part of a fully functioning system. It "imploded" because there was no reason to sit around and try to fix things since it was much easier to simply walk away with your seats and ride out the rest of the term as an independent. And you WILL need to find a loophole in the system if you hope to be in the next Cosa since you cannot run as an independent. So, for the next GE, you will have to join another party or the Independents can get together and form an "Independent Party." But if a person can just walk away from any party with their seats, what is the motivation to stay? Whether your reason for departure is political, personal or you just want to be a rebel, you can walk away with seats no questions asked. I fail to see how this proposed system would require a "loophole", Viteu. All it is doing is allowing parties to determine IF an MC will lose seats for losing and under what conditions an MC could lose them for going against the party. If you are so darned concerned about abuse then form the "Willie Nillie Party" and say that you keep your seats no matter what you do and you can't lose your seats for going against the party, that would also be your right as a party under the proposed legislation. 4 out of 22 people are registered as independent this clark. That is hardly. 1 of them, me, left the RUMP because of reasons that don't need to be listed here. I will note I left the RUMP after I let Hooly know of my intentions. A time frame wasn't given, but he knew full well how I was feeling and even pointed out to me my views on issues were more in line with the newly forming PP. It is my understanding the LRT imploded because the members basically voted against the charter they put into place. They all agreed on something then all turned their back on it. Not because people knew they would be able to leave with their seats. Seriously Tim, if a person keeps flipflopping between parties, I'm pretty sure the party wouldn't even assign them seats when it comes around again. Your proposed system, TIM, would require people who truly want to be part of the government and to have a free voice to register themselves as a one person party so they wouldn't fear losing their seats if the majority of the party decides they want to be able to change a charter to strip them of their seats. If this is the system you want, why have MCs at all in the first place? Why not just let the party vote as a bloc without individual MCs. That is, after all, what you're trying to create. Why even bother creating the illusion of MCs that can publicly disagree with their party without fear of retribution, why even bother creating the illusion that the MCs opinion matters anyway, since the only opinions that would truly matter would be the party heads. It seems you're asking for an extreme to solve the problem a handful (4 out of 22) people brought to light, not even intentionally! There was no mass coup. Also, I won't need to find a loophole, the PP is coming along nicely and we're in no rush to form a party to be recognized in the Ziu until we have things worked out. I find it incredibly presumptuous of you to think that the PP won't have its act together by the time the GE comes and also view it as an insult, as well as what I see as a condescending tone in your reply. Simply put, what you propose has a greater probability of being abused and greater potential of leading to a disaster in the Cosa than our current system. Our current system has potential for abuse, but history has shown us that people haven't abused it. If a party entrust a person with the seats, the party should TRUST the person. If the party doesn't, don't give them seats. I doubt anyone is sitting here thinking "hmmm... I'll infiltrate the new PP party, and then, right after the election, BAM! I'LL SWITCH PARTIES AND WEAKEN THEM."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 9:21:58 GMT -6
Before things get too out of line here Tim, I think we both need to sit back for a few moments and give other people an opportunity to respond. We have both made very compelling cases for our arguments and I think we have both painted enough pictures of how things could work out. People should be able to chime in now. Neither of us, it seems, are going to convince the other one. We're beating a dead horse now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 9:42:22 GMT -6
All I want, Viteu, is to see where the greater potential for abuse is.
The new system simply allows a party to choose whether to strip seats.
If a party abuses it, people will leave an join a party that does not strip seats. It doesn't limit people any more than they presently are. If they leave a party whose charter does not strip seats from those leaving, then you can still go off and form a new party or remain independent. This doesn't change that. It simply gives a party the OPTION to strip seats. If you don't like it, don't join a party with that provision in the charter.
And on a mathematical note, you are right, 4 independents hardly constitutes a quarter of the Cosa....
It constitutes 18%, I apologize for my generalization and the hurt it may have caused.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 9:48:24 GMT -6
I'm stepping back from this one, as well. I actively support this amendment.
|
|