Progressive Caucus Stuff

[Peter]

This is just a reminder for all those in the caucus (list below) about various administrative stuff that needs to be done.

In accordance with caucus rules, the caucus convention will open on April 8th (Friday). Our first order of business will be to elect a new Chairman and new Vice Chairman.

I will be running once again for the Chairmancy; Since Lewis has gone largely inactive in fantasy politics, I doubt he will run for re-election as Vice Chair, so somebody else will probably want to run.

I'd also like measures for additions (or deletions) from the platform, which can be found on the AtlasWiki, to be submitted soonish because then we don't spend forever in convention like we did last time. Obviously we'll be doing endorsements for the Senate races and maybe a few ballot props.

Member List
Peter Bell
Ilikeverin
Akno21
Blerpiez
Defarge
Irish Democrat
Alcon
Wildcard
Al
True Democrat
Siege40
MAS117
Lewis Trondheim
Nym90
Harry
The Bulldog
Immy
Ian
Jake
Gustaf
Frodo
Sam Spade

[Peter]

I'll be proposing (at least) this to add to the platform:

Euthanasia

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of persons to have a dignified death when in great distress and suffering from a terminal illness.

[Peter]

Vice Chair does nothing besides take over if Peter resigns, which I doubt he will.

And theoretically all I do is open up votes at Convention. I think the posts are much more than that however: They give standard bearers to social progressivism and hopefully organise the Caucus to promote some sort of common ideological agenda.

[Peter]

organise the Caucus to promote some sort of common ideological agenda.

Speaking of which I've been planning to do this one for a while:

End the execution of juvenile criminals throughout Atlasia; It never existed in the Midwest to start with and the Mideast has recently affirmed both that policy and the full scale abolition of the death penalty. The Southeast, Northeast and Pacific Regions still contain provisions within some of their State laws to execute juvenile criminals. I propose that those Regions consider the following initiative:

Statute on the Juvenile Death Penalty

1. The Death Penalty shall no longer be considered as a possible punishment in the [ ] Region for those criminals who were less than eighteen years old at the time of the commission of their crime.
2. Those persons sentenced to death for crimes committed when under the age of eighteen years shall have their sentences commuted to life in prison without possibility of parole.

[Peter]

So how do I join?

Oh yeah, sorry, probably should have said something: Your earlier post was treated as your effective point of joining.

Welcome!

[Peter]

Okay there are some other things I want to do within the Caucus at this Convention in terms of a structural reorganisation:

Amendment to Caucus Rules:

The Board

1. At the beginning of each Convention a census of the Caucus membership by party shall be conducted by the Chairman.
2. Each party shall be allocated a number of seats on the board by taking its number of members in the Caucus and dividing it by 5 and then rounding to the nearest integer.
3. Independents and members of parties lacking any Board representation may affiliate together to elect Board members as though they were a party.
4. Each party may elect or appoint Caucus members from their party to the Board as they shall wish.
5. The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall have seats on the Board ex officio.
6. The Board may endorse ballot measures and legislation by a majority vote.
7. The Board may issue emergency endorsements for elections when it is the opinion of the Chairman that there is insufficient time to hold a full Caucus vote.
8. The Board may pass a vote of No Confidence in the Caucus Chairman by a majority vote.
9. Should both the Chairmancy and Vice Chairmancy be vacant between Conventions the Board shall elect a new Chairman.
Present breakdown [subject to change, please check wiki page for caucus membership breakdown]:
FLP = 8 members = 2 seats on board
ILP = 5 members =1 seat
CUP = 3 members = 1 seat
Free = 3 members = 1 seat
Others = 4 members (3 Inds, 1 Dem, 1 ACA) = 1 seat should 3 of these members choose to affiliate.
then obviously Chair and VC are ex officio members.
This will be the Schedule for the Convention:
Friday 8 April - Opening
Sunday 10 April - Vote on above changes to Rules and vote on Chair/VC; Vote lasting 60 hours in the Booth.
Monday 18 April - Vote on Platform Changes and Election endorsements; Vote lasts until 12 hours before polls open - changes will be permitted due to the frequency with which surprise candidates appear.
If there are no further candidates for the Chairmancy then there will be no election to this post since MAS has stated he only wishes to be the VC, and MAS and I will be declared elected without contest.

Any sort of idea for platform changes are welcome and I also welcome comments on what I proposed above.

[Peter]

*Bangs Gavel*

I call this convention to order.

Voting on the Amendment to Caucus Rules will open during Sunday in the voting booth and will be open for 60 hours.

If there are any further candidacies for the Chairmancy, then we'll also hold a vote on that.

If anybody wants to say anything inspiring, feel free; I probably will do mid-next week. Any more proposals for the Platform should be forthcoming soon for a vote beginning Monday 18 April.

Also could members start thinking about (and possibly have some debate) on who to endorse:

Elections up (and present competitors):
D1 - Supersoulty unopposed
D2 - PBrunsel unopposed
D3 - NixonNow unopposed
D4 - John Dibble, Ebowed, Cosmo Kramer
D5 - Gabu, DanielX
SE - WiseGuy, Harry, StatesRights
MW - ILV, CheeseWhiz
Pac - Gov - Wildcard; Lt Gov. - Immy

When I make an address, I'll do my best to talk about what I feel the Caucus should be doing in each of these races.

[Peter]

I missed that one; I was however going to mention this:

I must say I would be honored, as the possibly the most socially conservative candidate for District 4 Senate, to receive an endorsement.

during my speech. Clearly a person who considers himself as the most socially conservative candidate in the election should not be getting an endorsement from us.

[Peter]

However, don't vote against Ebowed only because of abortion. We can't be single-issue people.

Frankly I know very little else about Ebowed on social issues. In part I haven't followed this campaign closely, but I think at least in part he's not too well known and this will give us unanswered questions about his stances. Perhaps Ebowed would like to post in this thread about other social issues to give us a few pointers....

[Peter]

Gay Marriage
Support
Really I'm completely status quo on this issue.  I think it's states rights and I won't mess with it as a Senator at the federal level.

Thing is that marriage is defined at the federal level under our Constitution.

I'd perfer to wait on Districts 1 and 2 to see if a more socially prgressive candidate enters those races, though I know both Supersoulty and PBrunsel are both find members.

The vote won't be until a few days before the election, so there's still time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Our strongest "anti-endorsement" in Senate races is to endorse NOTA - which is a course of action I will be recommending to this Caucus for at least one race

I've actually considered it in the past. I probably would fit, but I've decided not to join any organizations purely because I don't want to be beholden to anybody when it comes time to make a decision.

Our members aren't in anyway beholden to support 100% of our platform.

[Peter]

The Caucus Rules change has gone up for a vote in the Voting Booth in this thread

Given that there were no declared opponents to MAS or myself, we are both declared elected unoppposed.

Other votes are next week.

Presently I have the following additions to the Caucus Platform:

Euthanasia

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of persons to have a dignified death when in great distress and suffering from a terminal illness.

Strike Present Death Penalty Plank, and replace with:

Death Penalty

The Progressive Caucus opposes the Death Penalty in all cases, including the terrorists.  If we make exceptions for terrorists it won't be long until we make exceptions for lesser criminals.  The death penalty punishes some crimes while neglects others, and that's not justice at all.

Strike Present Pledge of Allegiance Plank, and replace with:

Pledge of Allegiance

The Progressive Caucus opposes the daily citation of the Pledge in schools.
I've modified the wording to be more in keeping with our traditional style of writing for the Platform. Akno also wants something on Abortion.

[Peter]

But only as a replacement for euthanasia. I don't think any serious group should make it an objective to push for the legalisation of killing people without their consent.

Yes, I can see how my earlier proposal could be construed in this way, though it was not my intent. Yours unfortunately may also suffer from a couple of flaws in the same vein:

I propose the following:

Assisted Suicide

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of the terminally ill to seek a death faster than would have otherwise occured through the assistance of doctors, and for persons to leave instructions to this effect for the event of their permenant incapacity.

How's this for abortion?

The Progressive Caucus supports the rights of the mother to have an abortion through the second trimester of the pregnancy.

I'd like a mother's health and foetal viability exception also. There's also something of a fault-line through the caucus on this issue and I question whether second trimester would get enough support

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of a mother to an abortion throughout the first trimester of the pregnancy and in the cases of a threat to the mother's health and foetal inviability throughout the pregnancy.

[Peter]

Both very good texts that sum up my position exactly.

Hey, on second thoughts, I'm still a member, right? Or did I quit right after the elections? I remember thinking about it, but I don't think I did.

As far as I have been concerned you didn't, even if you did.

[Peter]

The Caucus Rules change has gone up for a vote in the Voting Booth in this thread

By my count there is a little less than 12 hours remaining on this vote.

I will make my speech after close of voting tonight.

Given that the Measure looks almost certain to pass, the parties might want to think about who they want to put on the Board.

[Peter]

The measure has passed; The present census of the Caucus is as follows:

FLP = 8 members = 2 seats on board
ILP = 5 members =1 seat
CUP = 3 members = 1 seat
Free = 3 members = 1 seat
Others = 5 members (3 Inds, 1 Dem, 1 ACA) = 1 seat should 3 of these members choose to affiliate.

As far as I am aware Akno, Josh and Jake have affiliated to have Akno represent them.

The Parties can work out how to put members on the board on their own.

I'll make my address soon.

[Peter]

Fellow Progressive Caucus members,

The ever expanding Progressive Caucus now encompasses so many parties from the left across to the centre-right. It is always my pleasure to see that our Caucus attracts so many members and continues to stand for a Social Progressivism that will truly bring Atlasia into the 21st Century and give to all our citizens the right to celebrate their differences and their freedoms, whilst continuing to exist as one harmonious society.

This Caucus has seen a time where the practice of the death penalty has been reduced with the Mideast outright banning it and the Midwest due to take a vote on a similar measure soon. There have been similar motions in several of our Regions, and hopefully all Regions will soon ban the absolutely regressive practice of juvenile execution.

I welcome the efforts of the Pacific Legislature in its attempts to create a more progressive social policy with the legalisation of medical marijuiana and a reduction in the age necessary to purchase alcohol. Hopefully similar efforts will see success in other Regions, including the Mideast Region with its drive to reduce the age necessary to view pornography.

I urge the Federal Senate to repeal inter-Region and international trade restrictions on marijuana as I feel this should be a Regions-decide matter, and I wish the bill in the Senate presently all the success in the world.

In a matter of just over a week, elections for the Atlasian Senate and to three of the Governorships will take place: In deciding how each of you vote in your individual elections, I ask you take into account the stances of the candidates on social issues, and when casting your votes in the endorsement poll, I ask you to especially take this into account.

In each race we must choose between endorsing a specific candidate, urging voters to vote for NOTA, or not taking a position and remaining neutral.

In D1, the voters are presently confronted with Supersoulty alone - Whilst I consider that Supersoulty professes to one of the worst ideological aberations our world has ever known and has a record that could almost be the antithesis of social progressivism, he is nonetheless a competent Senator, and therefore I urge that our members not vote against him in the endorsement poll. I recommend to all members in this respect a Neutral vote.

In D2, the voters are presently confronted with PBrunsel alone - Whilst his ideological insanity is not that of neo-Conservatism, it is still insane in the respect of the fact that I feel he allows his personal religious choices to inform his ideology too much. He has ranted in many venues of this hallowed forum of a position that bears many hallmarks of the religious right - Whilst he hides behind his Mr. Nice Guy persona, he is undoubtedly an enemy of social progressivism and would doubtless move to repeal hard-earned victories such as Gay marriage and would likely support a total abortion ban. His competence is also in question as was displayed through his Presidency - his heavy reluctance to fire Secretary MasterJedi in the wake of massive inactivity was proof enough that his ability to make the tough decisions is questionable. I urge all members to support None of the Above.

In D3, the voters are presently confronted with NixonNow and King - I'm no opponent of true Conservatism, and this is what NixonNow adheres to. Nonetheless, his anti-Semetic jokes, are worrisome in the respect that they bring our Republic into complete disrepute. King has just announced his candidacy, so I really have no idea what I'm doing since I'm changing a pre-prepared speech. Whilst King is a holder of the Assclown award (Miss February), I nonetheless feel he is certainly more socially progressive than his opponent and will hopefully be an asset in the Senate. I recommend that this caucus endorse King.

In D4, voters have much choice between John Dibble, Ebowed and Cosmo Kramer. Ebowed is very much an unknown commodity - he has however come out against all abortion and euthanasia - this presents worrying questions over whether he could truly support a Socially Progressive agenda in the Senate. Clearly enthusiastic, and with a good grasp of the issues, he would be a good addition to the Senate, however doubts about his other social stances remain and for this reason I cannot ask members to endorse an unknown quantity.

John Dibble is a Libertarian to be sure, though I feel he is a Libertarian with whom this Caucus could do business. He would undoubtedly support much of the Progressive agenda, and has already indicated his willingness to comprimise on issues such as education and fight over questions of control of funding, as opposed to arguing for reduction in funding.

Cosmo Kramer, despite being a member of the Progressive Caucus, recently boasted to the ACA that he considered he was the "most socially conservative" candidate in this race. On the basis of his own remarks I do not consider him a viable ally for Social Progressivism in the Senate.

For the District 4 race, I urge members to endorse John Dibble.

In D5, voters are faced with Gabu and DanielX. Gabu has been a great champion in the Senate and has worked hard as PPT. He has supported the Progressive agenda in his time and for this reason I see his re-election as much needed. DanielX is not necessarily an opponent of our agenda either; From when I ran against him for the possession of my present job, I know that Daniel is an honest and well-intentioned candidate and against most other oppponents I would seriously consider him for this endorsement, unfortunately Daniel has a habit of running into the Giants of the Centre Left. I wish Daniel the best in the future, and hope he will run for the Midwest Senate seat, though I feel this Caucus should vote to endorse Gabu today.

In the Southeast Gubernatorial Race, voters are faced with Harry, StatesRights and WiseGuy. StatesRights is an undoubtable enemy of social progressivism as evidenced by his positions even on the existence of gays. I do not consider him a viable endorsement in this regard.

WiseGuy is new to Atlasia and is clearly enthusiastic; However his position of support for user fees to pay for public services I find to be unacceptable as it would leave the most vulnerable in society without the ability to live. He has also come out against gay marriage and most likely has other socially conservative positions. Whilst I wish him the best of luck in his time here, I cannot regard him as a viable candidate for endorsement.

My disagreements with Harry are well known and I am of no doubt in my opinion that he is corrupt. Unfortunately we've yet to definitively nail him despite knowledge of several shady deals with Boss Tweed and his introduction of pocket voters such as KatieG. He is however an ally of social progressivism and would doubtless try to stem the tide of socially conservative measures in the Southeast. However, I consider that doubts over integrity must be controlling.

Lacking a NOTA option in the Southeast, I urge members to vote to remain Neutral

In the Midwest, voters are now faced with only Cheesewhiz, which is a shame, because I had some really good lines for the ILV candidacy. Cheesewhiz is quite socially conservative, so I'm going to recommend a Neutral endorsement. Assuming he is elected, I wish him the best in his time here in Atlasia.

In the Pacific, Wildcard and Immy are running unopposed for their respective positions. I've used up my lexicon of ways to call people socially progressive, so I'll just say that they both are and that I urge members to endorse them both for re-election.

Before anybody asks, the vote on endorsements will begin over the weekend.

Feel free to discuss my recommendations.

[Peter]

Are we going to have some type of activity requirements to be included in the caucus? There is some dead weight (Flyers) that impacts the census, and it might skew the board, in terms of how much representation groups should have.

We can routinely expel the dead weight if its necessary. Also, those who get struck from the voter rolls, automatically get struck from our rolls.

[Peter]

I doubt Harry will stand up against social progressivism as he's voted for my abortion initiative.

Sensical would be nice.

[Peter]

Social liberalism dosen't equal progress.

Not necessarily in all cases, but in my opinion it does for the most part. Its also pretty ignorant of the founding movement that lead to this caucus to suggest that social liberalism isn't  big part of what we stand for.

[Peter]

Then I'm sorry.  I misunderstood the principles of this caucus by naively thinking it was actually supporting progress, not acting a front for the social liberal establishment.

I've deliberately tried to foster the Caucus from taking official stances on some of the more divisive issues such as abortion and affirmitive action, and taking a conciliatory line on the death penalty, but there are places that I draw the line.

For example I certainly consider that somebody who holds these sort of views:

Homosexuals are mostly perverts whos' lifestyle should not be admired. Most of them have very serious mental issues or are child molestors and those two reasons alone are enough to block homosexuals from adopting children.

hear! hear!

is not really an ally of progress in society. The suggestion that almost all homosexuals are perverts/child molesters/mentally retarded is frankly stupidly naive. I can understand those with certain religious convictions who feel it is sinful to engage in these acts, and I can understand those who feel that its not their cup of tea, but labelling gay people as child molesters is just contrary to the facts.

[Peter]

I've gotta say, it'll be pretty ironic if the Progressive Caucus endorses John Dibble, considering he also earned the endorsement of the Atlasian Conservative Alliance, presumably due to his economic stances.

As I say, to me, you are pretty much an unknown commodity. You've shied away from social issues other than abortion. As I've said, I don't wish to really place the Caucus on this issue, so I really don't know what to judge you on. Dibble on the other hand is well known on the forum and therefore I know what he stands for already.

You've sort of outlined some of your positions earlier, and I am still willing to consider you and change my advice. I suppose a good thing for you to do would be to respond to the platform planks, which can be found here in addition to the stuff you've already said.

And you're right, it would be quite ironic; I hadn't actually noticed until now however.

[Peter]

On your Pornography plank, I would support the age to be 18, not 16, as I think that if the age were 16 other adult rights would have to come with it, possibly even the right to vote.

The age of sexual consent is 16 in most States: I don't see why at one age you are able to engage in the acts, but you cannot look at pictures of people engaging in these acts for another two years. Its never made intuitive sense to me, and frankly teens are going to get hold of the stuff regardless, so I see no reason to criminalise a perfectly normal behaviour. Obviously we still need to protect younger children, but considering that a teen can legally do it at 16 in most places, I'm not so sure what the point in protecting them from porn is.

[Peter]

Okay, I've just discovered, that according to the SE constitution, their elections must occur this weekend, so I'm going to call to order only the vote on that endorsement.

I'm going to wait on the other endorsements, because as we are presently seeing in the D3 fight, circumstances can change quickly and I'd rather not have to think too much about changed votes when I count up.

[Peter]

You're the only candidate in your race, aren't you...?  John Dibble is running against two candidates, so unless the other two candidates are completely clueless joke candidates, something fishy would be going on if he recieved the endorsement of both the token conservative party and the forum's liberal caucus.

The suggestion that there's some sort of corruption going on is ridiculous. I don't know how John came to get the ACA endorsement, but I made my recommendation completely independently of other people.

School Prayer and Related Issues - I oppose organized prayer in public schools, but support the "Moment of Silence" that is used in most public schools.  I oppose removing "Under God" from the Pledge officially, however I am completely against the mandatory recitation of it in public schools.  Whether or not it contains a reference to God, being forced to say it is a violation of free speech.  Many liberals seem to overlook this fact, and it makes them look anti-religious.  To me, it's not about the reference to God, it's the whole thing.  Not wanting to recite an allegiance to the country is protected by the first amendment.  On a related note, I also oppose any laws or amendments that would outlaw flag desecration.

I'd like to go through this a little more if thats okay as I'm not entirely sure where you stand:

When you say you are against mandatory recitation in schools, does this mean you are against the recitation of the Pledge in schools period, or does it mean you are against students being forced to recite the Pledge when it is recited daily?

I'd also like to take you back over the issue of Sex Education if I may: In your own local community, what stances would you want the curriculum to take on homosexuality and abstinence education. Also would you support contraception on demand after age 16?

[Peter]

I will shortly be opening the Progressive Caucus endorsement poll for all the Senate races and other elections for next weekend. This vote opens immediately and closes at midnight Tuesday/Wednesday. Voting in this thread.

Given recent changes, I am also going to issue new advice (see this post for previous advice):

In the District 5 Special election, I recommend the endorsement of DanielX for the reasons I had previously stated.

In the District 4 race, I have given more consideration, and I stand by my original recommendation of John Dibble. I would however stress that I also support Ebowed highly, but I find the "No Abortion whatsoever" position to be too strong for me to recommend him over Dibble.