Progressive Union HQ

[GAworth]

Welcome to the Progressive Union Joe Mad!  (And also the Mideast )

[GAworth]

I would assume so, also put the platform changes in the convention thread. We are still having a convention lol.

[GAworth]

As someone who hasn't been the best of friends with your kind over the years, can you guys explain to me why some among your number oppose the tradition of loonyism that has pervaded the Midwest since its inception, as well as the inclusion of a jolt of fun into the Pacific Region that made this game more fun that it had been in a while? Are you guys attempting to be the Serious People Party?

I not sure how I feel about that "your kind" statement, but setting that aside, "loonyism" has it place, I also believe that "serious" legislation and legislatures are fun and needed from time to time. I feel that some of the loonyism leads to outrageous over the top attacks on each other that do absolutely nothing for anyone but make us mad.

[GAworth]

Congrats Siren, you have my full support.

[GAworth]

Well I haven't done a whole lot but I successfully got elected to the Althing. So far I have two of my bills passed, they are:
1. Midwest Green Governance Bill
2. Midwest Gender Neutral Restrooms in Government Buildings Bill

I have a few currently under discussion but we will see. As for re-election I am still undecided on running.

[GAworth]

I move for party endorsement votes this weekend on the Mideast Assembly and Midwest Althing races once we have a better idea of who all is running and what they stand for.  Would anyone like to second that?

So far in the Midwest, Thomas D, Cris, and myself are running.

[GAworth]

I will be asking for an endorsement from our Party.

[GAworth]

Census Atlasia
November 14, 2013

Region	Fed	Labor	PRO	Liberal	DR	NMAM	other	ind	Total
Mideast	16	12	5	5	3	0	2	9	52
Northeast	6	9	3	2	3	1	4	9	37
IDS	12	5	3	1	2	2	2	5	32
Pacific	3	7	7	3	0	2	4	5	31
Midwest	7	10	2	1	0	1	2	3	26
Total	44	43	20	12	8	6	14	31	178

We are tied for first in the Pacific! 20 members is nothing to sneeze at.

[GAworth]

Why won't the remaining Liberals abandon ship, already?  Are those the zombie voters we'll eventually see swept from the rolls?

Who knows after that recent court ruling if they will be eliminated.

[GAworth]

So are we doing endorsements this weekend?

[GAworth]

Hi fellow Progressives.  First, I want to warmly welcome Brewer to the party!

In other news, voting on Party Endorsements for the Mideast Assembly and Midwest Althing races is now open.  Voting will be open for 72 hours.

Remember our endorsement votes use score voting*. 

*Note on how score voting works:  members give each candidate a score ranging from 1 (the worst) to 10 (the best); candidates with an average score of at least 8 (as well as any candidates belonging to the Progressive Union) are endorsed. Any ballot not including an official candidate will be considered as abstain; any ballot not including a certain write-in candidate shall be considered to rate that candidate a '1'

Midwest Althing

[ 7 ]  Arturo Belano (Labor - NE)
[ 7 ]  Cris (Federalist - CO)
[ 10 ]  GAworth (Progressive Union - SD)
[ 6 ]  Thomas D (Liberal - IA)
[  ]  Write-In _____

Mideast Assembly

[ 7 ]  DC Al Fine (Federalist - MD)
[ 10 ]  hifly15 (Progressive Union - DC)
[ 7 ]  Inks.LWC (Federalist - MI)
[ 5 ]  JohanusCalvinusLibertas (Federalist - IN)
[ 6 ]  Mr. X (Labor - OH)
[ 8 ]  OAM (Labor - IL)
[ 6 ]  shua (Democratic-Republican - VA)
[ 7 ]  Sibboleth (Cultural Marxist - WV)
[ 10 ]  Siren (Progressive Union - VA)
[  ]  Write-In _____

[GAworth]

THANKS Y'ALL!!!
My only problem could be, what if people don't wanna see all the seats endorsed? Could we do that under PR-STV?

[GAworth]

We'll need some new planks to modify our bylaws for endorsement votes if we want to do that.

Here's one possibility:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone is welcome to propose other planks or modifications to this one. 

I'd rather hold off on an endorsement vote until we finalize what we want to do with this, at least for the next few days.

I like this idea. It makes the most sense to me. Nice and simple.

[GAworth]

Well I don't know if we want to do this or not, but should keep the automatic endorsement of all members section of our endorsements procedure, I know we still keep them in our votes although we already endorse them?

[GAworth]

Good catch GAworth.  I think party members should definitely be endorsed, though I would hope the party would vote to endorse them anyway...

We could change the plank to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad I could help, so are the names of Party members going to appear on the ballot or will they be automatically endorsed, no vote needed. I am sure they can meet the threshold but  is it necessary?

[GAworth]

Aye

[GAworth]

I feel the party has a responsibility to endorse and support any of its members.  Individual members are still free to support/vote for whoever they want.

There is no reason for a party to endorse its own members without the members voting for it first. All candidates need to be held to the same standards by this party, no matter what party they're from.

Don't want to interject if I'm not welcome, but isn't the sole point of a party to get its members elected so they can govern by the party's philosophies. If someones not automatically endorsed what the point of there being parties at all?

I'm with Flo on this one (even if I decided not to vote), even if my reasons are based on a minor detail. Let's say someone enters the party just for the sake of getting endorsed, that would create a problem for the party's image, even if we just avoided voting for said candidate. When IBDD and I were members of the deceased UNDA, Kitteh joked that she could perfectly join just for the sake of trolling a little bit.

Besides, since our party is fairly big tent (or at least there's some variety to choose from), it's perfectly possible for members of all wings to be less supportive of members of the opposite wing, and I guess the more democratic method would be allowing a vote on that. We say that parties and their governing policies are the point of the game, but I think the thing that really drives the game is personalities and individuals.

I feel like apologizing for opening this can of words, but it is a point that needs to be flushed out. It is a loose loose, if we need to vote, it could lead to divisions, if we don't, we could get trolls. I feel like voting will be better, however, I will approve this plan for know until I feel the Party can't fall apart.

[GAworth]

I feel the party has a responsibility to endorse and support any of its members.  Individual members are still free to support/vote for whoever they want.

There is no reason for a party to endorse its own members without the members voting for it first. All candidates need to be held to the same standards by this party, no matter what party they're from.

Don't want to interject if I'm not welcome, but isn't the sole point of a party to get its members elected so they can govern by the party's philosophies. If someones not automatically endorsed what the point of there being parties at all?

I'm with Flo on this one (even if I decided not to vote), even if my reasons are based on a minor detail. Let's say someone enters the party just for the sake of getting endorsed, that would create a problem for the party's image, even if we just avoided voting for said candidate. When IBDD and I were members of the deceased UNDA, Kitteh joked that she could perfectly join just for the sake of trolling a little bit.

Besides, since our party is fairly big tent (or at least there's some variety to choose from), it's perfectly possible for members of all wings to be less supportive of members of the opposite wing, and I guess the more democratic method would be allowing a vote on that. We say that parties and their governing policies are the point of the game, but I think the thing that really drives the game is personalities and individuals.

I feel like apologizing for opening this can of words, but it is a point that needs to be flushed out. It is a loose loose, if we need to vote, it could lead to divisions, if we don't, we could get trolls. I feel like voting will be better, however, I will approve this plan for know until I feel the Party can't fall apart.

     Excuse me for intruding, but one suggestion I have heard (don't know if it was ever implemented by any party) was to have party members be endorsed by default, but allow a motion to unendorse a party member for a particular office. It would reduce potential for divisions and bitterness, but also allow for disassociaton from undesirable candidates if necessary.

That actually might be a great compromise option.

I like that idea a lot.

[GAworth]

I propose that (please make each of these separate votes if possible):

The title of Chairman/Chairwoman will be changed to Queen (regardless of gender).

The title of Vice Chairman/Vice Chairwoman will be changed to King (regardless of gender).

The Progressive Union will have an Attorney General, whose title will be Progressive Advocate.

-_-

[GAworth]

Once again, a idea dies, and now we spend all of our time attacking each other.

[GAworth]

Is Napoleon still a member of the Progressive Union?
Edit: Nevermind, I just saw he changed

[GAworth]

Flo wants the job anyways. I support the nomination. I am too busy here in Cheezwhiz to head to the national cluster bomb that is Federal Politics.

[GAworth]

A proposal:

My fellow Progressives, a few hours ago some members of our party were discussing some of the most important issues that Atlasia faces now, and some of problems that our party has. We have problem with credibility now, given that staying on the center creates the "moderate hero" syndrome. One way of addressing that is the Shadow Cabinet. As many of you know, the Westminster Parliamentary System generally involves the opposition party forming a Shadow Cabinet with Ministers that follow the policies of the Administration, and they present counter-proposals that follow the party's platform (most of the time).

This was proposed by a member of Labor (I forgot who that was, Griffin or Dr. Cynic), and while I apologize for using that idea for our party, I feel that is it the best way to create a good contrast with the administration and the rest of the parties. The purpose of this is for us to discuss whether we approve of this cabinet, and if so, who will fill the positions.

During our chat last night we decided not to involve the Registrar General, Game Moderator and SOFE since those offices are much less partisan, which means that we would have Shadow Ministers for President, VP, SOIA (in doubt, since Superique is SOIA), SOEA and the Attorney General.

Let the discussion begin!

I think this can be a great way to get the Party back on message. We also discussed last night, that we should try to have an overall message.

What was proposed last night
a. regional consolidation
b. a Greener Atlasia
c. standing up for small business.
d. Decreasing unemployment
e. Fixing the wiki

We can as always work on the specific details, however, those are the general areas. What does everyone think.

[GAworth]

That was PJ's department, it calls for a secretary of the wiki, to update the wiki. Both regional and Federal secretaries.

[GAworth]

awwwww sad moment for the Party.