|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 31, 2014 14:34:39 GMT -6
Okay. As Cresti points out, the RUMP thinks every party should have the freedom to give seats according to their own principles. I think the ZRT should join us in that policy, since you already have it in practice. It doesn't seem like much of a restriction to say that seats should only go to people on the party list, unless they're on someone else's party list, and they can take some seats with them if they go to a new party.
Actually, I would suggest that probably the flaw is just how the ZRT has stated their policy. Your party policy has been consistent with a principle, just not the principle you state. Maybe the important thing for you guys is that "Seats should only go to someone who has been elected by the voters," even if it's by the voters of a different party or they have moved to a different party. If the important thing is just that they've been sanctioned by the voters at some point, in your view, then your actions would be consistent with your words.
I do still think that it's probably better to keep the flexibility in hand to do otherwise, but this might clear up the disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jul 31, 2014 14:54:28 GMT -6
My opinion is influenced by the clause in the German Constitution that says that a MB (Mitglied des Bundestags, member of the Bundestag) has only to follow her / his conscience. But they have to be brought in by the vote of the voters. Im a Derivatist to the extent that one MB does only command over exactly one seat in the Bundestag --- it's making things simpler, as thus it would be impossible to flip sides with a backpack full of a large percentage of seats.
|
|
|
Post by Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Jul 31, 2014 17:02:58 GMT -6
Might I offer my own thoughts here? I would argue that as the LRP and the ZRT merged as one party, therefore so did their candidate lists, as part of that, especially as the only LPR member held all their seats, and was obviously on their candidate list, therefore in merging the two parties, giving a seat to the MC who held seats from the other party that merged with our own party, was not actually giving one to an MC that wasn't on our candidate list, but one that was through the merge. (if that makes any sense?)
However this is only my own thoughts.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 31, 2014 17:40:40 GMT -6
I can't believe we're still debating this.
|
|
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 31, 2014 19:49:29 GMT -6
I can't believe we're still debating this. I think that as long as the ZRT sticks to the platform of "Only people on the list published before the GE will get Cosa Seats" , this debate will be revisited before each GE.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 31, 2014 20:57:27 GMT -6
No, that's not our position, as I explained to Glüc at length. I never explicitly excluded giving one extra seat to an existing MC who merged his party later because I never thought about it and if I had I would have specifically exempted it. You oppose our principle without understanding what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Aug 1, 2014 1:45:17 GMT -6
No, that's not our position, as I explained to Glüc at length. I never explicitly excluded giving one extra seat to an existing MC who merged his party later because I never thought about it and if I had I would have specifically exempted it. You oppose our principle without understanding what it is. It is what I believed your position to be, although I agree that the merger created a special case that would fit under the principle.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 1, 2014 5:11:35 GMT -6
Perhaps I should reformulate the principle as: no-one will be brought into the Cosâ by the ZRT who wasn't there already who's not on our party list. (Yes, I know I would have broken this if I'd allowed Carlüs to bring in a second LibCon MC. That would have been a grave mistake. I was motivated by annoyance at the ModRads not letting the LibCons in the Coalition.)
|
|
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 Aug 1, 2014 5:58:59 GMT -6
I like Evan's theory better: if two parties merge, the successor party effectively inherits the candidate lists of both parties. Not that I support binding candidate lists, but if one does accept binding candidate lists as a good thing, that seems like a reasonable way to deal with party mergers.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 1, 2014 8:21:29 GMT -6
I don't know, I think that my formulation makes more sense - the important thing in their policy is that the mandate of the people has gone to the elected, in some form, right? Of course, I'm not on board with the binding lists either... after all, look at how it needs ex post facto modification in order to conform to reality's requirements!
I'll be interested to see where the ZRT lands on this one, but we may have to wait a long while, since I think they just recently approved a new platform.q
|
|