Requirements for a Political Party Bill

[Brandon H]

I'm glad all of these questions were asked when I was discussing this bill a few weeks ago.

The Jesus Christ Party's official ideological label is "Moderate."  Does this qualify for Section 3, Clause 1, or would our party need to be more specific?

I think something more specific would be better, though I suppose that would qualify. Ultimately I think it would be under the discretion of the SoFA.

5. Comedic - A party may designate itself a "Comedic" or Joke party in which the party has no serious political agenda.

I'd like a small clarification, please- this category does include the Ron Paul Party, yes?

The RRP already has more of a detailed political description in a week than the JCP has had in a few years. We also named the Party after Ron Paul because we share his beliefs. Frankly, based on the viewpoints of some members of the JCP, it seems it was named after Jesus Christ as an insult to Christians.

Why should a disorganized party be forcefully dissolved? That makes no sense to me.

To clear the rolls of parties that do nothing. When was the last time the CDP or ILP did anything? Even with 7 members, the SLA hasn't done much since Dr. Cynic left. I did what I could to keep the ACA active even with 3 or 4 members. What is the real difference between a party that does nothing and a bunch of independents?

And I can't think of a recent political party convention that wasn't a complete waste of time.

But it wasn't always that way. I remember when Candidates would debate at a convention trying to win the parties endorsements. Parties debated on platforms that actually meant something.
---
I feel political parties are a big part of Atlasia. If you don't, then go register as an independent. I see no reason for there to be almost 20 parties when most doing nothing, though I do see the humor in some (like the AMRLP).

[Brandon H]

I'm glad all of these questions were asked when I was discussing this bill a few weeks ago.

Well, are you suggesting we not debate the bill?

Not at all. But I discussed this earlier before introducing it to in order to address any problems with this bill.

The RRP already has more of a detailed political description in a week than the JCP has had in a few years.

If the intent of this bill is to make Atlasia's oldest and second largest party "illegitimate" because it doesn't have a political description to your liking, why should I vote for it?  Why should anyone vote to limit the free speech rights of the political parties?

This has nothing to do with free speech. We have requirements on voters such as a certain number of posts and the fact they must vote to remain on the rolls. If we can put requirements on voters than we can put requirements on political parties.

If you don't, then go register as an independent.

Quite snippy.  Just because the ACA kept having its utterly useless conventions right till its death doesn't mean that the whole game would be better off if every party were having three people vote on whether or not to endorse its own candidates for a senate race and a VP spot, or wherever they happen to have candidates on the ballots.  Yaaawn.

Two questions: In your opinion, what purpose to political parties serve? Why are you in a party?
---
Colin, thank you for your support of this bill. I thought about adding a requirement for a brief statement about the party, but Section 3 of the Miscellany Act already requires a party to have a 200 platform (which lately seemingly has been ignored). But if you still think a 50 word statement would improve this bill then I will support it.

[Brandon H]

I have no problem with providing recognition to the fact that a party is or is not organized - it is strictly this one part of the bill that I am strenuously opposed to.

The original version actually did not include this. It was asked what incentive does a party have to try to maintain these requirements. This was the only realistic one I could think of. It isn't like we could do federal funding (not that I would support that). The only other one is creating some sort of ballot access laws and that would only make things worse.

I am open to suggestions.
---
I offer the following amendment:

Clause 2 of the Requirements Section is amended to
"a 50 word statement briefly explaining their political view points or a platform (as defined by Section 3 of the Miscellany Act)."

[Brandon H]

Designations, Clauses 6 and 7 are unconstitutional and I motion that it be removed.

Amend the previous amendment to
a 50 word statement briefly explaining their political view points or a platform of 200 words or more.

The benefits of being an organized political party may be determined by the Senate by appropriate legislation.

So we can determine the benefits and can put additional requirements on those benefits.

We shall repeal that Clause of the Constitution, especially since its author had not envisioned the party to voter ratio being near 4 and most not have platforms.

And I already addressed the free speech issue.

---

Dr. Cynic,
You were one of the better party chairmen around. (Of course even if you came back now, you would already be in the top 3.)

[Brandon H]

Aye

(How did I let this one slip?)

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

I motion that a new section be added,

Exceptions

1. Parties that have been active for more than three years are excempt from classification under the Designations and Requirements sections of this bill.

Although I'm strongly leaning nay on this, could the Senator define 'active'? Does that simply mean 'in existence' or something else?

[Brandon H]

Could the SoFA provide his input on how realistically possible it is for him to go back three years to check that at least one member of a party has voted in every federal election since that time?

[Brandon H]

So if a party with 5 or 10 members eventually does that it would be impossible to tell while a party with 1 member would be easy to tell. So this requirement could not be measured in a uniformed manner for all parties?

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Brandon H]

Well, basically, enacting this would require one of two things: either for the SoFA to keep track of the registrations of every party that is ever made in Atlasia, or for the parties themselves to each keep track of their own registrations.  I don't think either is particularly fair to the people involved, especially considering the lack of any real benefit that I can see.

Thank you Mr. SoFA. I appreciate your input.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

In its original form, I believe this would fall into the job of the SoFA. The purpose of this bill is to make the SoFA's job easier as well as new participants, but one of the key provisions, the eventual nonrecognition of parties that fail to meet its requirements, was removed as it would more than likely have been unconstitutional. (Article V, Section 1, Clause 8)

In its current form, I'm really not sure it's worth the SoFA's time to keep track of this. I would say that each party can keep track of this itself. If they lie about it, someone can take them to Court. It's not like the Supreme Court is overloaded with things to do. In the event another list of parties page gets stickied, I would let the person maintaining that page keep track.

[Brandon H]

I feel that the amendment that removes two of the clauses removed the unconstitutional parts but at the same time resulted in this bill doing almost nothing if it were to pass.

At this point I'm really not that disappointed.