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

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

Duh, I'm sorry, I completely misread the first clause. I thought you were making caucuses require ten members, which seemed insane. Sorry for that. Though I'm not sure we necessarily need to make the party register the caucuses itself; I think the people forming the caucuses can register and de-register them as they rise and fall on their own.

[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!

[Marokai Backbeat]

No problem with that part. Makes perfect sense, I think.

[Napoleon]

I will definitely support this if amended and will work to form a Liberal Caucus in the JCP. Ideally more developed and specific platforms arise from these caucuses.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I had a grand vision for caucuses being a part of a restructured RPP back around December of last year, prompted by KS21 and Miles's formation of one. Unfortunately I was the only one with such grand designs, and even fewer (meaning less then none) had the enthusiam and interest in creating them. Maybe this time I try more direct approach.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Will you put all of us into predetermined caucuses, chairman Yankee??

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Let's see how that works out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, people are actually going to think that last post from me was a reponse to Duke.


The truth isn't that far removed, either.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If caucuses aren't formed naturally, the senate will be forced to form them by our armies!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who needs armies? or even the Senate for that matter? I got something "better" in mind.

[Bacon King]

I like the amendment that bgwah is working on and I think it's good enough to be formally proposed. If the JCP stays around I could see myself joining a JCP Liberal Caucus.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I like the amendment that bgwah is working on and I think it's good enough to be formally proposed. If the JCP stays around I could see myself joining a JCP Liberal Caucus.

I'd join as well, but I still see no reason why can't we have organizations beyond party structures.

[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?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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?

All right, since it wonłt be obstacle in free association outside of parties, I will not oppose this bill.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

Which flamed out because they had no staying power..

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Caucus seems fine. It's the easiest identifiable term for something like that, given the American system, and makes sense.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This has taken a disappointing turn. The term "caucus" should not be restricted to a those involving a single party.  You should at least refer to them as "party caucuses" to distinguish them from more open organizations.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This has taken a disappointing turn. The term "caucus" should not be restricted to a those involving a single party.  You should at least refer to them as "party caucuses" to distinguish them from more open organizations.

If anything, the way people have been using them is the incorrect way. The "Defense Caucus" as an activist organization doesn't even really make sense as a name. "Atlasians for a National Defense" is a more appropriate activist group name, but somehow everyone under the sun wanted to start a caucus, without it actually being attached to any sort of partisan group.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This has taken a disappointing turn. The term "caucus" should not be restricted to a those involving a single party.  You should at least refer to them as "party caucuses" to distinguish them from more open organizations.

If anything, the way people have been using them is the incorrect way. The "Defense Caucus" as an activist organization doesn't even really make sense as a name. "Atlasians for a National Defense" is a more appropriate activist group name, but somehow everyone under the sun wanted to start a caucus, without it actually being attached to any sort of partisan group.

Yet there are interparty caucuses in Congress.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hey, you don't need to convince me to be in favor of inter-party caucuses. I already totally am. Talk to them!

[Napoleon]

This has taken a disappointing turn. The term "caucus" should not be restricted to a those involving a single party.  You should at least refer to them as "party caucuses" to distinguish them from more open organizations.

If anything, the way people have been using them is the incorrect way. The "Defense Caucus" as an activist organization doesn't even really make sense as a name. "Atlasians for a National Defense" is a more appropriate activist group name, but somehow everyone under the sun wanted to start a caucus, without it actually being attached to any sort of partisan group.

Yet there are interparty caucuses in Congress.

They don't get listed on ballots.

[bgwah]

This has taken a disappointing turn. The term "caucus" should not be restricted to a those involving a single party.  You should at least refer to them as "party caucuses" to distinguish them from more open organizations.

If anything, the way people have been using them is the incorrect way. The "Defense Caucus" as an activist organization doesn't even really make sense as a name. "Atlasians for a National Defense" is a more appropriate activist group name, but somehow everyone under the sun wanted to start a caucus, without it actually being attached to any sort of partisan group.

Yet there are interparty caucuses in Congress.

But you can be a member of multiple caucuses in Congress. And we're not talking about caucuses inside of a legislative body. We're talking about any voter being able to register with them and having them appear on a ballot.

"National Rifle Association" doesn't appear on the ballot, for example.