The Registration Fee Reduction Act

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

For discussion:

WHEREAS 42RZ14, The Registration Act, establishes a fee of 13¤20 (or $20US) to register a political party for national elections, and

WHEREAS Article VI, Section 2, which authorises the establishment of such registration fees by law, specifies that the purpose of such fees is "to cover the cost of the election", and

WHEREAS the revenue from the current fee level is significantly in excess of the actual costs of conducting general elections, and consequently amounts to a tax on running for the Cosa used to subsidise the general treasury, now

THEREFORE the Ziu hereby amends section 1 of 42RZ14 to strike the words "a registration fee of 13¤20 (thirteen louise and twenty bence, equivalent to $20US)" and replace them with the words "a registration fee of 3¤20 (three louise and twenty bence, equivalent to $5US)

Uréu q'estadra sa,

C. M. Siervicül (MC, RUMP)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would like to co-sponsor this, if the MC is willing.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

I would venture to defend the $20 fee as insurance that keeps people from creating frivolous (for lack of a better word) parties. Generally, twenty bucks (for me, anyway) is about the cutoff where I start seriously considering pros and cons of a purchase, and debating whether I actually wish to make said purchase, while five bucks is, to me, not much of anything ("It's five bucks; why the hell not?").

Also, he said, putting on his robe and wizard hat SoS hat, the Chancery would like very much not to be forced to keep track of half a dozen one-person political parties that were possibly created for no better reason than "because I can."

I can see being okay with a $10 fee, maybe. But I think $5 might be too little.

[ián txáglh]

Nov 3, 2013 20:34:08 GMT -6 Iustì Carlüs Canun said:

I can see being okay with a $10 fee, maybe. But I think $5 might be too little.

why is 3¤20 too little? too little to cover the proclaimed election expenses or to little to prevent suspicious parties to enter elections?

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

The latter. And not "suspicious." I said "frivolous."

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

If we want to have mechanisms in place to stop frivolous parties, I'm open to that - and maybe if we come up with a good one, it might even be added here. But 3¤20 still seems like enough, to me. And while I have in the past supported the larger fee for the same reason you mention, I am increasingly dubious about the danger.

[ián txáglh]

i am also very dubious about the danger of "frivolous" parties entering elections. first, talossan pond is relatively small, so we know each other well and a risk, that someone's going to do something really strange isn't that high (saying that, i still remember the ESB case). moreover, even 20 bucks are not so much to go for "fun" if i want to be "frivolous". i am more worried about the danger of hidden plutocracy (pls, do not take this label too seriously), that just paying the registration fee almost automatically makes me a deputy (which is not accompanied with much benefits as in real world, where it would be of higher danger, but still). in 200 seat cosa body, even one vote for your one-man-party rewards you with a seat. my democratic guts find it not so good, although i honestly admit, that the danger it-self is not that big; weak mandate is just what it is, a weak mandate.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

As for "frivolous" parties, it should be completely up to the electors to decide which parties are represented in the Cosâ. But this, of course, means, that all parties should be barred from means to buy themselves a place in an oversize Parliament.

[Glüc da Dhi]

How much are the actual costs for conducting elections? I'm guessing it might be closer to $0 than $5.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Nov 5, 2013 10:18:35 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

How much are the actual costs for conducting elections? I'm guessing it might be closer to $0 than $5.

Unless you count the value of the time of those involved in conducting the elections (Not that we get paid, but still.) I've always thought that the registration fees really ought to be used to pay the Kingdom's various web-hosting fees.

[ián txáglh]

Nov 5, 2013 20:55:50 GMT -6 Iustì Carlüs Canun said:

Nov 5, 2013 10:18:35 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

How much are the actual costs for conducting elections? I'm guessing it might be closer to $0 than $5.

Unless you count the value of the time of those involved in conducting the elections (Not that we get paid, but still.) I've always thought that the registration fees really ought to be used to pay the Kingdom's various web-hosting fees.

so, it is rather some kind of tax than a frivolous party regulation? and wouldn't be better to drop the party registration fee and just finance the royal web-hosts more openly, in a transparent way, let say by means of non-mandatory tax? i am very open to such solutions and as a responsible citizen, i am ready to participate directly, cos i benefit from it.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

I find myself caught in the middle agreeing with both Sir Cresti and S:reu Iustì in regards to what they have said about the Registration Fee.

My suggestion is that we meet somewhere in the middle, in that in the first election a party registers for they pay a once off fee of $20 and for every election thereafter the party only pays $5. Thus, for example, every party in the current Cosa will only have to pay $5 when they register for the next election, however any party which forms, breaks away from a current party to form a new one etc... and decides to register for the first time, will pay have to pay $20 and then $5 thereafter. Thus we solve the problems on both sides of the fence.

My two bence,

Litz

[Istefan Perþonest]

Nov 5, 2013 0:57:13 GMT -6 ián txáglh said:

i am more worried about the danger of hidden plutocracy (pls, do not take this label too seriously), that just paying the registration fee almost automatically makes me a deputy (which is not accompanied with much benefits as in real world, where it would be of higher danger, but still). in 200 seat cosa body, even one vote for your one-man-party rewards you with a seat.

Now that there's the IND, nobody has to pay to get a seat, they just have to vote for IND and claim the seat they win themselves. Money and seats have already been decoupled by independent action.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I agree that the registration fee could probably be lowered, but we still need some kind of revenue. Currently I think the King is paying for most Talossa related websites. It would be good to see the Kingdom take this over. Another thing is that its strange that MCs have to pay, but Senators, who have just as much power, dont. Maybe reducing the fee to 5$ and at the same time creating a small fee for Senators as well (maybe 5$ as well, but just for accepting a seat, to prevent lose-lose situations). This would make sure at least part of our income is stable and not dependent on the number of parties. Anyway, what I think is the biggest problem of this act is that it doesnt actually solve the problem it intends to solve. Namely, according to the OrgLaw the fee is meant to cover the election costs, but 5$ is still way more than the actual election costs. Maybe the OrgLaw should be amended to be less restrictive on the purpose of the money, but instead create an upper limit, so it doesnt get out of hand. Reducing the fee in combination with an amendment to make the fee more legitimate would definitely something I could support.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Nov 6, 2013 16:22:20 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Nov 5, 2013 0:57:13 GMT -6 ián txáglh said:

i am more worried about the danger of hidden plutocracy (pls, do not take this label too seriously), that just paying the registration fee almost automatically makes me a deputy (which is not accompanied with much benefits as in real world, where it would be of higher danger, but still). in 200 seat cosa body, even one vote for your one-man-party rewards you with a seat.

Now that there's the IND, nobody has to pay to get a seat, they just have to vote for IND and claim the seat they win themselves. Money and seats have already been decoupled by independent action.

A side effect though is that voting IND also means giving away a blanc cheque to unknown MC's you may or may not agree with.