SB 2018-172: Party Organisation Act (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Passed 6-0 in the Atlasian House Assembled,

[/quote]

Sponsor: Not_Madigan

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[_]

I will vote for this bill, however, I have a suggestion for an amendment.

I'd ask that if a Party below 3 members, but if they were to hold Elected office in any Regional or Federal Legislature, that they be labeled a Recognized party. 

It's my belief that if a Party is able to win an election, it should be Recognized as a legitimate Major Party.  (A good example would've been TSA's LibDems)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will vote for this bill, however, I have a suggestion for an amendment.

I'd ask that if a Party below 3 members, but if they were to hold Elected office in any Regional or Federal Legislature, that they be labeled a Recognized party.  

It's my belief that if a Party is able to win an election, it should be Recognized as a legitimate Major Party.  (A good example would've been TSA's LibDems)

That defeats the purpose of having "recognized parties" in the first place, though, which is to distinguish between large parties with organized leadership structures and one-man outfits like the Lib Dems. This distinction matters because constitutionally, recognized parties are responsible for filling vacancies in the House created by the resignation/expulsion of one of their members, while seats vacated by the member of a minor party go to a special election. If a party has only one or two members, it's reasonable to assume that it does not have a large base of support and may not even have a clear leadership structure, for which the appointment system would be ill-fitted.

The purpose of this legislation is not to make tiny parties feel bad; it is to clearly distinguish large parties from small parties for the sake of administrative clarity.

[_]

I will vote for this bill, however, I have a suggestion for an amendment.

I'd ask that if a Party below 3 members, but if they were to hold Elected office in any Regional or Federal Legislature, that they be labeled a Recognized party. 

It's my belief that if a Party is able to win an election, it should be Recognized as a legitimate Major Party.  (A good example would've been TSA's LibDems)

That defeats the purpose of having "recognized parties" in the first place, though, which is to distinguish between large parties with organized leadership structures and one-man outfits like the Lib Dems. This distinction matters because constitutionally, recognized parties are responsible for filling vacancies in the House created by the resignation/expulsion of one of their members, while seats vacated by the member of a minor party go to a special election. If a party has only one or two members, it's reasonable to assume that it does not have a large base of support and may not even have a clear leadership structure, for which the appointment system would be ill-fitted.

The purpose of this legislation is not to make tiny parties feel bad; it is to clearly distinguish large parties from small parties for the sake of administrative clarity.

Well, in that case I withdraw my suggestion and will just vote Aye on this bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I will vote for this bill, however, I have a suggestion for an amendment.

I'd ask that if a Party below 3 members, but if they were to hold Elected office in any Regional or Federal Legislature, that they be labeled a Recognized party. 

It's my belief that if a Party is able to win an election, it should be Recognized as a legitimate Major Party.  (A good example would've been TSA's LibDems)

That defeats the purpose of having "recognized parties" in the first place, though, which is to distinguish between large parties with organized leadership structures and one-man outfits like the Lib Dems. This distinction matters because constitutionally, recognized parties are responsible for filling vacancies in the House created by the resignation/expulsion of one of their members, while seats vacated by the member of a minor party go to a special election. If a party has only one or two members, it's reasonable to assume that it does not have a large base of support and may not even have a clear leadership structure, for which the appointment system would be ill-fitted.

The purpose of this legislation is not to make tiny parties feel bad; it is to clearly distinguish large parties from small parties for the sake of administrative clarity.

Well, in that case I withdraw my suggestion and will just vote Aye on this bill.

      Will you assume sponsorship of this bill?

[_]

I will vote for this bill, however, I have a suggestion for an amendment.

I'd ask that if a Party below 3 members, but if they were to hold Elected office in any Regional or Federal Legislature, that they be labeled a Recognized party. 

It's my belief that if a Party is able to win an election, it should be Recognized as a legitimate Major Party.  (A good example would've been TSA's LibDems)

That defeats the purpose of having "recognized parties" in the first place, though, which is to distinguish between large parties with organized leadership structures and one-man outfits like the Lib Dems. This distinction matters because constitutionally, recognized parties are responsible for filling vacancies in the House created by the resignation/expulsion of one of their members, while seats vacated by the member of a minor party go to a special election. If a party has only one or two members, it's reasonable to assume that it does not have a large base of support and may not even have a clear leadership structure, for which the appointment system would be ill-fitted.

The purpose of this legislation is not to make tiny parties feel bad; it is to clearly distinguish large parties from small parties for the sake of administrative clarity.

Well, in that case I withdraw my suggestion and will just vote Aye on this bill.

      Will you assume sponsorship of this bill?

Yes I will.

[Lumine]

I'm not entirely convinced on the threshold for a major party. 30 members seems awfully high, as on the current landscape only the Federalist Party would qualify and it would be odd to argue many of the other large parties (Alliance, PUP, Pax and even zombie Labor) get stuck as minor parties despite having a reasonably large membership and several elected representatives.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Not_Madigan assuming sponsorship.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

We could do something like make “major party” 20. It’s just an idea

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm not entirely convinced on the threshold for a major party. 30 members seems awfully high, as on the current landscape only the Federalist Party would qualify and it would be odd to argue many of the other large parties (Alliance, PUP, Pax and even zombie Labor) get stuck as minor parties despite having a reasonably large membership and several elected representatives.

If I remember correctly, TPP would not have qualified as a major party under this bill even during the period when it held a majority in the unicameral Senate. It's not entirely clear to me what the benefits of major party status are, but this does seem a very high standard.

[_]

15 members to me seems like a good enough threshold for a major Party, and I'd support an amendment making that the Threshold.

[Lumine]

Right, I offer an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, Senator Not_Madigan is the sponsor. With that out of the way,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Status: Awaiting sponsor feedback
Sponsor feedback: Pending

[_]

I very much approve of this amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The amendment is friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, Amendment S11:09 is adopted.

[Lumine]

I think that was the outstanding issue, so I motion for a final vote.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I think that was the outstanding issue, so I motion for a final vote.

I second the motion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A final vote is now open on this bill. Senators have 72 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[_]

Aye!

[Pericles]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Aye!