ZRT Campaign Underway

[Hooligan]

Jul 4, 2012 9:28:49 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Hool, I'm not sure you're accurate in saying the RUMP was the first to publish a list of those who'll get seats. Date and URL of the link, please?

Certainly. For this election, we were the first, on May 14, and here's the URL to the Witt post announcing our platform, principles, and policies, and which contains the list in question.

(Insomuch as you didn't respond in kind when the PP published a party list for the 39th Cosa.)

The RUMP might not have published a list before the 39th, sure. Neither did the CRO. Or the LRT. Or the FGP. (And I note, was it a big deal then? No. Not even. Not even. Did the PP think that "hey, the RUMP didn't publish a list, so don't vote RUMP" was something that would resound with Talossans? No. Not even. Not even. All this "bind the parties and pull their freedoms" stuff is brand new. Brand new with this election.)

The RUMP doesn't feel that it HAS to publish a list. It doesn't feel the CSPP (or the MRPT or the ZRT or the CeR) HAS to. In all these cases, I would hope that all those parties simply know that its voters are confident enough in the party leadership to trust it to put those people who will best serve their interests into the Cosa, whoever they are.

The RUMP leadership sometimes chooses to name names on the way into an election, but the RUMP constituency always knows that names don't really matter. It's what the voice of the party says in the Cosa that matters, not the particular face that the voice comes out of. And if a voter thinks that the party won't do a good job representing the beliefs it says it stands for (using whatever faces it thinks best does the job), then, well, that party won't get his or her vote.

Publish a list if you want. But there shouldn't be a law saying every party has to do so. It's a free country, full of free people, free to freely start parties to freely contest elections. Let the parties be free to represent its policies freely. And let the voters decide if "I won't vote for a party that didn't list the people who will represent the party's ideas, even though I support those ideas and bet they'd be represented well" is something they want to consider in the polling booth or not.

And there definitely shouldn't be a FURTHER law saying, "and not only must every party pre-publish a list of human beans, but no matter what happens during the course of the Cosa, no Cosa seats that are vacated can ever be given to anyone not on that list." That's hamstringing a party and preventing it from best representing its constituency as it sees fit as things change. Because yes, things change. Seats get vacated, someone who would be a great Cosa member but was too busy to commit when any list was made might come free and be the best person to take the vacated seats. Etc., etc.

Keep the parties free and let the voters decide if they are doing what they are supposed to -- representing the ideas of the people who vote for them.

Hool

[Owen Edwards]

I wasn't really asking for a detailed defence because I wasn't criticizing you, Manus . I was making a specific point about the scope of your claim - it seemed you were saying you were the first party IN GENERAL to publish a list, whereas you meant this election.

[Hooligan]

Jul 4, 2012 9:51:16 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

I wasn't really asking for a detailed defence because I wasn't criticizing you, Manus . I was making a specific point about the scope of your claim - it seemed you were saying you were the first party IN GENERAL to publish a list, whereas you meant this election.

:-)

Sorry if I seemed defensive (I wasn't trying to be!). I didn't think you were being critical. I just used the opportunity to once again go through the RUMP's "parties should be free" position. :-)

And yeah, I think lists have been something parties have sometimes done and sometimes not done since time immemorial. I didn't mean to imply the RUMP was the first ever. If I had to guess, I'd say the Dandipatrick Party was the first. :-)

It's such a minor thing to me, though, that I certainly had forgotten, if I even noticed (because, like I say, to a Talossan voter, names shouldn't really matter), that the PP had chosen to so in the 39th.

Hool (or, as Owen accurately said, Manus)

[Glüc da Dhi]

Last term, RUMP MC's voted different from each other on 31 of 36 proposals. (not counting all the times when RUMP MC's failed to vote entirely)

Names do matter.

I cant hold the RUMP accountable for how the party voted in cosa, because the RUMP almost never votes as one party. I can hold individual MC's responsible.
I mean, I would be able to do so, if the RUMP told me who Im electing.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

I dont mean to be rude. I have read through all the comments and i appreciate the responces. But because im on my phone and i can only go on the internet on my phone ill just make a general responce. I understand and respect your views. But i however happen to belive there should be party and individual accountabilty. Also the knowlage of who were electing. I just personaly support the ZRT and there ideals over all of the other talossan parties. There direction is one i agree with. I dont mean to slag off or whanot of other parties however it seemed as if i was for that i appologise. I was just stating my opinions through observation. I admit i need to do alot more research before i.fully understand the political system.
BTW Hool saying youre the most apt in the RUMP party at political disscution was a compliment.
And im sorry i didnt adress individual points.

[Hooligan]

:-) No worries, Evan. And yes, I knew you were complimenting me (thank you!) and only was making a joke about my mom being disappointed that apparently her son turned out to be a politician! :-)

I thank you, as I thank all voters, for the thought they put into their ballot, and your choice is very respected and respectable. The RUMP was simply pleased to provide answers to your questions concerning its policies and positions.

Hool

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I know my style of campaigning is alienating to some. I must say that I don't actually like doing it myself. All I can say is that I do what I think is necessary for Talossa and for its future, regardless of whether it loses me friends, and I think the current performance of the ZRT shows that I'm not doing things too wrong. If you like what I say but not how I say it, the ModRads are also a fine choice.

[Eðo Grischun]

Jul 4, 2012 16:37:50 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I know my style of campaigning is alienating to some. I must say that I don't actually like doing it myself. All I can say is that I do what I think is necessary for Talossa and for its future, regardless of whether it loses me friends, and I think the current performance of the ZRT shows that I'm not doing things too wrong. If you like what I say but not how I say it, the ModRads are also a fine choice.

Deary, your not losing me as a friend, not by any means. I just struggle to get along with your political side. When you don't talk politics, your awesome.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 4, 2012 10:01:27 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I mean, I would be able to do so, if the RUMP told me who Im electing.

This is getting circular.

The Rump does tell you who you are electing. You are electing a Party Platform.

You are electing a Party to represent you in the next Cosa, and they will appoint MC's to represent that platform. Just like every other Party. The difference is, the RUMP suggests that the list of potential MC's is in flux, and future members that join the RUMP might be able to get seats, too. After proper vetting, of course.

No party - NONE - can guarantee that every single person in a handcuffed list of Members will absolutely , without a doubt, vote exactly the way that party wants them too.

For ANY Party to promise that "Our MC's will only vote the way we want them to" is ludicrous at best, and Communism at worst. It is also deceitful. If a MC is not allowed to vote how his/her true feelings are about an issue - why bother having individual members? Why not just say, at the start of each Clark : "The party of XYZ vote "No" on all acts? Why bother having a list at all?


To release a list of a cabal of members that will be the ONLY ones to represent a party for the next 7 months is also Communist. Or Fascist. Certainly not Republican or Democratic ( to use USA party lingo).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

For ANY Party to promise that "Our MC's will only vote the way we want them to" is ludicrous at best, and Communism at worst.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jul 4, 2012 22:36:11 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Jul 4, 2012 10:01:27 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I mean, I would be able to do so, if the RUMP told me who Im electing.

This is getting circular.

True, although you still seem to think that all MRPT MC's are forced to vote the same way on everything, and that is still not true.

The Rump does tell you who you are electing. You are electing a Party Platform.

Barely, as like some RUMP members said, most issues are not mentioned in the party platform. On the other issues the RUMP as a whole seems to have no opinion, but individual MC's. Too bad I dont know who they are.

You are electing a Party to represent you in the next Cosa, and they will appoint MC's to represent that platform. Just like every other Party. The difference is, the RUMP suggests that the list of potential MC's is in flux, and future members that join the RUMP might be able to get seats, too. After proper vetting, of course.

And since all those MC's will vote differently I can only have a clue about how the party will vote if I can time-travel. And apparently Im not Talossan enough, because I cant.

No party - NONE - can guarantee that every single person in a handcuffed list of Members will absolutely , without a doubt, vote exactly the way that party wants them too.

For ANY Party to promise that "Our MC's will only vote the way we want them to" is ludicrous at best, and Communism at worst. It is also deceitful. If a MC is not allowed to vote how his/her true feelings are about an issue - why bother having individual members? Why not just say, at the start of each Clark : "The party of XYZ vote "No" on all acts? Why bother having a list at all?

Of course the MRPT MC's cannot agree on everything. We do agree that we will vote the same way on the manifesto though, and the four parties programme and I believe also the answers to Ián questions.

Your last sentence is interesting. Its not the first time someone mentions this paradox between 100% party discipline and a real candidate lists. This has little effect on the MRPT as we dont have 100% party discipline, only on the manifesto. Enforcing this wont be a big problem, because all future MC's have agreed to it.

The paradox does however work the other way round. A party cant give the entire responsibility for the way it votes to its MC's and then not say which MC's it is going to appoint. That way, on most issues, I honestly dont have a clue how the RUMP will vote. Heck, theoretically all new RUMP MC's that arent Talossan yet might all support mandatory party lists.