SENATE BILL: Caucus Infrastructure and Formation Act (law'd)

[Napoleon]

I'm considering offering an amendment that will change this bill quite a bit. I haven't written it yet the main differences would be as follows:

-Caucuses cannot be inter-party. I think the purpose should be internal divisions.
-Citizens can only be a member of one caucus.
-The main party shall have the authority to do basic regulations with its caucuses, and play a large part in determining how much power the caucuses would have and how much the main party would have.

I would be able to support this 100%.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And it would make caucuses entirely pointless. Great job, guys.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I oppose these amendments as well.

[bgwah]

And it would make caucuses entirely pointless. Great job, guys.

What!?

I think your version would make caucuses entirely pointless!!! You seemed to like my idea here.

[CatoMinor]

I offer this amendment to section 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think if you wanna have a caucus just within one party it is fine. Its not like multi-party caucuses wouldn't also exist.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How about simply making a distinction between intra-party caucuses and "other" caucuses?

There's really nothing wrong with people being able to associate outside of the parties.

[Napoleon]

I'd rather require caucuses to be within parties so these things don't supercede parties.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd rather require caucuses to be within parties so these things don't supercede parties.

So I take you'd either outlaw or bound to the parties every other forms of associations in RL?

[Napoleon]

I'd rather require caucuses to be within parties so these things don't supercede parties.

So I take you'd either outlaw or bound to the parties every other forms of associations in RL?

Huh?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd rather require caucuses to be within parties so these things don't supercede parties.

So I take you'd either outlaw or bound to the parties every other forms of associations in RL?

Huh?

I still don't understand your reasoning, Napoleon.

[Yelnoc]

I'd rather require caucuses to be within parties so these things don't supercede parties.

So I take you'd either outlaw or bound to the parties every other forms of associations in RL?

Huh?

He's accusing you of wanting to get rid of OAII.

[Napoleon]

Oh, I'm saying that caucuses should be within a party. There could be a Liberal Caucus and a Labor Caucus within the JCP for example.

[bgwah]

I simply don't see the purpose of inter-party caucuses. That's what a political party is for in the first place.

Caucuses should be intra-party only.

If the duel-dissolution of the JCP &RPP doesn't happen, then we need to figure out a way to make a two-party system more interesting, and I believe intra-party caucuses are the way to accomplish this. Marokai's proposal just seems to be an odd and confusing system where we simply have two sets of parties simultaneously.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I simply don't see the purpose of inter-party caucuses. That's what a political party is for in the first place.

Caucuses should be intra-party only.

Caucuses are mostly single-issue things. Parties are not. Why wouldn't the people be able to associate on some idea outside of party affilation?

I really don't understand your resoning, man. I really don't.

[bgwah]

I simply don't see the purpose of inter-party caucuses. That's what a political party is for in the first place.

Caucuses should be intra-party only.

Caucuses are mostly single-issue things. Parties are not. Why wouldn't the people be able to associate on some idea outside of party affilation?

I really don't understand your resoning, man. I really don't.

I don't see it like that at all. The JCP could be divided into Labor, Liberal, and/or Green caucuses, for example. The RPP could be divided into Conservative and Libertarian caucuses. Those are hardly single-issue caucuses.

We've already have the kind of single-issue caucuses you're talking about. We don't need a law adding registration for them.

[bgwah]

I offer this amendment to section 2b

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think if you wanna have a caucus just within one party it is fine. Its not like multi-party caucuses wouldn't also exist.

Sponsor(s)?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I offer this amendment to section 2b

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think if you wanna have a caucus just within one party it is fine. Its not like multi-party caucuses wouldn't also exist.

Sponsor(s)?

I.. accept this as friendly. I can tolerate this is it makes people more likely to vote for it. It still allows for inner and intra party caucuses to both exist.

But I will not accept any sort of amendment that tries to make caucuses inner-party organizations only. That's a ridiculous restriction that doesn't even make sense. Do some of you fear political parties losing any power at all that much? Giving people the option of an intra-party caucus hurts absolutely no one. There are no negative consequences to that whatsoever.

Like I said, I will accept Jbrase's amendment. It allows for both to exist. I will not, however, vote for any final version that tries to form caucuses into inner-party organizations only.

[bgwah]

No, YOURS is pointless. This is EXACTLY what parties are for.

You register with a caucus? YOU REGISTER WITH A PARTY.

5 members for a caucus to become established/major? THAT'S HOW MANY MEMBERS A PARTY NEEDS TO BECOME ESTABLISHED.

A caucus appears by a candidate's name on a ballot? A CANDIDATE'S PARTY APPEARS NEXT TO THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT!

Replace the word party with "caucus" and the word major with "established" and you've just created the party system. We already have a party system that does exactly the same thing!

Having two sets of parties at the same time is utterly absurd.

Don't accuse me of fearing a loss of power for parties. I want to abolish the current parties! The opposition of your party is what's holding the idea up at the moment.

Apologies for the excessive use of caps lock and bold. But I really want to get across the point of how silly this bill is in its current form.

[bgwah]

I know you may feel like you burned your bridges with the JCP, but really Marokai, just re-join the party. I certainly don't mind. There's no reason to create this bizarre shadow party system to skirt around the issue.

You left the JCP because you were bored of the party system, or so you claimed at the time. And there were of course lots of personal issues.

But now, the JCP is obviously more in line with you on this issue than the RPP is. Far more. Not to mention the fact that you're a left-winger. And I think most of us are over whatever hard feelings there were a year ago.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The very point of a caucus is to have a loose collection of like minded people that is not necessarily drawn from a single party.  Caucuses need not be regulated at all.. but also should not have any legal authority and should remain in campaign speeches instead of on the ballot.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I realize the similarities, but they are that way for a reason. 5 members is a reasonable amount. Appearing on the ballot makes them actually matter and be noticed. Having similar regulatory powers as a party only makes sense for any established organization to have.

I know you have your idea elsewhere. It's a great idea, I like it, I want my party to stop being so reactionary to any JCP idea and give it a shot as well. But you are holding up an actual idea that might change things and be interesting right at this very second in favor of an idea no one has written down on paper that has gotten absolutely no formal vote so far.

And what happens if we go through with your idea, and parties almost immediately devolve back to a two party system within a couple of election cycles? You idea is great, but there are ABSOLUTELY no safeguards to prevent the system to coming right back to what it is now. Your idea is an interesting refresh, but my idea changes the actual political system to include more organizations that are more varied and issue-focused.

That is precisely what our current system, which is obsessed with ever-broadening parties that vote for their people no matter what, needs! And giving people the OPTION (read as: not forcing anyone to do anything if they don't want to) to form organizations that cross current party lines is the only way to achieve any sort of safety net to making a two-party system less likely.

Caucuses were meant to resemble parties, but not be partisan. That was the hold point of this proposal. To encourage factionalization of the current party system, make our debates more issue focused, and maybe, cross my fingers, lead to a weakening of the current behemoth parties. Making them partisan is what makes this pointless. If you would give my idea a chance, for once, you might have something different happen, instead of shooting more and more ideas down in favor of your long-shot idea that hasn't had any sort of agreement!

Do you want to put your name on this? If we make you and the rest of the JCP a co-sponsor to this proposal so you can take all the credit, will it make you more likely to be in favor?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I know you may feel like you burned your bridges with the JCP, but really Marokai, just re-join the party. I certainly don't mind. There's no reason to create this bizarre shadow party system to skirt around the issue.

You left the JCP because you were bored of the party system, or so you claimed at the time. And there were of course lots of personal issues.

But now, the JCP is obviously more in line with you on this issue than the RPP is. Far more. Not to mention the fact that you're a left-winger. And I think most of us are over whatever hard feelings there were a year ago.

Your leadership may be making alot of talk about being in favor of your idea, but I would be surprised if your rank and file membership voted more in favor of the idea than the RPP's. In some way, we have the opposite problem. Our members are fairly open to it, but the leadership isn't. Your leadership favors it, but several of your members don't seem to.

I left the JCP because the party system sucks and the game needed to change. I tried to accomplish that with a new party. Now, a year later, you ride up on your white horse trying to act like you've recognized this all along and you have the solution. As if the JCP have been the reformers all along.

I want this game to change in some fundamental way. Then I will look into changing parties. And no, it really isn't anything personal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I object to the statement that "the RPP leadership isn't open to the idea" on the basis of factual innaccuracy. 

[bgwah]

You say it's pointless to make caucuses partisan. But that's exactly what you're doing by making them exactly like parties.

And I feel like you're missing a very big part of what I'm arguing... I'm not just calling for dissolution of the parties. Part of the reason I support the caucus idea (albeit a different kind than you) is that I'm worried the duel-dissolution idea may not become a reality. And because I know there is some possibility Atlasia could return to a two-party system if we went through with it, even if I tend to think that's pretty unlikely. We both see caucuses as a back-up, in a way.

I think we have the same goal---create internal party friction. And continuing my back-up theme... If we did get the two parties to agree to dissolve (maybe it will happen next year, who knows?), what better way to split them than by caucus? They could serve as an excellent starting point for a new party system.


It's not about whether or not it was my idea. It's about which idea I think makes sense and will accomplish our goals.

I've never tried to act like the JCP has always been the "reform" party. That would obviously be absurd.

And I acknowledged in the first post of my proposal's thread that I can't guarantee my idea would pass within the JCP. But I think that having the party's leader enthusiastically supporting the idea will help make it a reality.

But the sad truth, Marokai, is that I probably would have been open to your idea last year. But you didn't talk to me about it. You lied to me, plotted with my arch-nemesis, and stabbed me in the back. That was obviously an extremely stupid way to go about things, and I've made a point to avoid doing the same with my proposal. That's why I made a thread to give everyone an opinion.  To include everyone. But I'm not going to talk about this anymore. That's not what we need to figure out.

For whatever reason, the UDL failed and the JCP once again dominates the Atlasian left. If the JCP can survive that, then it seems likely that dissolution is the only way to get a truly new party system. Replace JCP with "RPP" and UDL with "Hamilton," and we can say the same of the RPP.


Oh, and JBrase's amendment has been accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Okay, Bgwah. Let's have it your way. I will support your amended version of a caucus proposal. But if caucuses go nowhere under those restrictions, we will likely end up right here debating inter-party caucuses yet again.