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

[bgwah]

I'm giving this a forum affairs slot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsors: Marokai Blue, Duke, Yankee, bgwah

[bgwah]

I feel like this is missing something... I'm going to have to think about possible amendments...

[bgwah]

I do think intra-party politics sounds fun, but we've largely seen the anti-RPP conservatives/libertarians and anti-JCP liberals stay out of their respective major parties. I'm not sure this bill would actually give us intra-party politics as long as that remains the case. I'm worried this will be a lot of bureaucratic mess that won't deliver the desired the outcome.

[bgwah]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed.

[bgwah]

Are we ready for a final vote? I'm still undecided on how I will vote...

[bgwah]

Are we ready for a final vote? I'm still undecided on how I will vote...

The way I see it, it can't hurt to implement this. We need something to increase activity in the game, and if this can do it, so be it, but it isn't like it will send shockwaves through the current party system.

Might as well just ban the major parties...

[bgwah]

What kind of caucuses do you envision developing though?

Considering you left the JCP, for example, the JCP is probably more internally unified now, lessening the desire anyone might have for a caucus. I guess you and Max can have a two-person "liberal" caucus in the RPP???

[bgwah]

Voting is now open on a motion to table.

[bgwah]

This bill wouldn't be necessary if my proposal were to become a reality.

[bgwah]

This bill wouldn't be necessary if my proposal were to become a reality.

Eggs in one basket, eh?

Indeed. And changing one's vote or position entirely on the basis of a proposal that isn't even a real thing yet seems ridiculous.

The thing is, I'd much rather wait and see what happens with my proposal before  committing to this.

I'll vote aye just because I can and there will be no consequences.

With 3 ayes and 5 nays, the motion to table cannot reach two-thirds majority and is rejected. Debate continues.

[bgwah]

So, then, I see that Napoleon is Friz-cum-Libertas.

I don't really know what you mean by this, especially the first part, since Napoleon has been one of the most active Senators.

[bgwah]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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)?

[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.

[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.

[bgwah]

Thank you, I think we're making the right decision. What I'm proposing sounds similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_(European_politics)

Here is a post I made a couple days ago in another thread that describes my idea in more detail (I know you've seen it, as you said you liked it---I'm mostly posting it for other Senators to read):

I've been wondering about possible alternatives since it's seeming unlikely the RPP will dissolve.

One idea I had was to embrace the caucus idea, and make it so the JCP kind of resembled the old Progressive Caucus* (*different kind of caucus). Aside from Presidential elections, each caucus would function almost as its own party, running their own candidates for Senate, Governor and so on. And then for Presidential elections the caucuses would come together, and have a big primary. Or something. The caucus bill in the Senate is still open so we could make it so each caucus shows up on the ballot and so on. Or we could just scratch that bill and start from scratch later, since I'd personally prefer to wait and see what the RPP will do.

I don't know if anybody else would be interested, though. It's not really what I initially envisioned and feels like such a moderate hero compromise. But, if the RPP ever did dissolve or collapse, it would be easy to turn each caucus into its own full-fledged party. It could be kind of a temporary thing, maybe.

I'm currently writing my version. I hope to have it finished tonight or tomorrow.

[bgwah]

Here's a rough draft (I'm not formally proposing it yet).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

10 members is a bit much for an organization that's already going to be restricted to existing within a single political party.

I don't care too much about that number, I guess. I just sort of figured---the minimum number of members a party would need to have at least two caucuses would be 10. I'd be fine with just saying "major party" (which would be 5 members), though, if it matters that much.

[bgwah]

I'm not making the party register them? It just says you have to be a member of a party with 10 members to do so.

What do you think of the very last part? Not sure it would ever happen, but I figured why not!

[bgwah]

There's nothing stopping them in my version. They just wouldn't involve the government (such as by registration & appearing on ballots). We've already had the Peace & Defense caucuses, for example.

What do you thinks think about the nomenclature, btw? Is caucus the best word or should we name them something else?