SENATE BILL: Amendment to the Caucus Infrastructure and Formation Act (OTPD)

[Yelnoc]

I realize I am not a senator, but is it ok if I post language amendments in this thread, and then one of you can officially sponsor them?

[Yelnoc]

My footnotes are italicized.  They need to be removed before this can be voted on.  I have taken the liberty of restructuring the entire bill; hopefully this form is more clear.  I did type this up rather hastily though; I'm sure it could use some proof reading.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Yelnoc]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

[Yelnoc]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

[Yelnoc]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

Whichever would be.... ?

...showing the general public that the candidate is a member of Caucus x, maybe?

[Yelnoc]

But why? (No, not trying to troll you)

Well, why would intra-party caucuses be allowed on the ballot, but non-party caucuses be forbidden?  It's equality under the law that we are talking about, here.

The OAII is a different kind of a caucus. And it has existed for quite a while, long before the caucus bill. It doesn't need to be registered, and it will be not be killed by this amendment. It will continue to exist as it has.

It may have been a mistake not to come up with some different word to describe the intra-party caucuses...

Perhaps.  But I do not understand why people oppose it being registered.  And it's not just OAII I am advocating for.  What about a reform caucus?  There are people in both the JCP, the RPP, and others who would join such a caucus in large numbers.  However the party could never succeed because, leaving party dynamics aside, "reform" as the only plank will not hold a party together.  I am sure I could come up with other examples of organizations taht would do better as inter-party caucuses then full-fledged parties.

But yes, I'll find the old thread and glance through it.

[Yelnoc]

Try this on for size.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Yelnoc]

...Does that mean I've (mostly) converted you to my side of the argument?

No.

But I'm not a senator and if I keep arguing nothing will get done and I will have to take Homely (or you, or somebody else) to court so that we can have the current law'd bill clarified.  If there is any senator who supporters my initial amendment, I would appreciate if you offered it as an amendment.  Regardless, you (bgwah) might as well introduce my political correct bill, assuming it doesn't have any flaws.

Anyway, I'm out for now.  I'll check back in though to see if the final bill has language problems

[Yelnoc]

I'm not even fully understanding what big amendment we're needing here that necessitates reproducing the entire text of the original Act, since, as Bgwah has so nicely reminded me, it just became law yesterday.

The registration issue was the current controversy, but the sloppiness of the original necessitated a redraft.  You'll notice the Party dissolution section has been restructured to mandate that only members who choose to reregister with the party the caucus is joining go with the caucus, preventing dissenters from joining a party against their will.  I feel like there were other issues, but I have to run...

[Yelnoc]

I'm not a senator, so feel free to ignore me.  But do something.