Partisanship Requirement Amendment (At Final Vote)

[Colin]

Partisanship Requirement Amendment

Article V, Section 2, Clause 1 is amended to read as follows: A person may become a registered voter if he has attained twenty-five posts at the forum. In registration, the person must state his name and State of fantasy residence; in addition, he must may optionally state a political affiliation with an organized political party. If the party a person is affiliated with is declared unorganized, the person will have one week to affiliate with another organized political party.

Article V, Section 1, Clause 8 is amended to read as follows: Any political party of five or more members is considered to be an organized political party. If the membership of a political party is less than five members for more than one week, the party will be declared unorganized. A party may not attempt to reorganize for one month after it is declared unorganized. The benefits of being an organized political party may be determined by the Senate by appropriate legislation.


Sponsor: Senator Meeker

[CultureKing]

hmmm.... I dont think I care for this bill.

[Torie]

"They" are trying to run me off already. The Bill  strikes me as Unconstitutional, and if it is not, it should be.  It's a form of truncating free speech. I also think voters should be able to elect whomever they want, including unregistered persons, and plan to introduce appropriate legislation to that effect. In the meantime, this Bill is a Wrong  Way Corrigan[/urll] compass.

[Colin]

The Bill strikes me as Unconstitutional, and if it is not, it should be.

I don't believe a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional.

[Хahar 🤔]

"They" are trying to run me off already. The Bill  strikes me as Unconstitutional, and if it is not, it should be.  It's a form of truncating free speech. I also think voters should be able to elect whomever they want, including unregistered persons, and plan to introduce appropriate legislation to that effect. In the meantime, this Bill is a Wrong  Way Corrigan compass.

It's an amendment, so constitutionality is a moot point.

This would certainly make the game more interesting, so I support it.

[Torie]

Ah, the word Constitution was not used, but clearly you are right.

Why is truncating speech rights going to make this "game" better?

[Хahar 🤔]

Why is truncating speech rights going to make this "game" better?

It'll make it more interesting, what with the scrambles to find a party.

[Meeker]

First of all, I urge every Senator to throw out any preconceived notions or opinions before they consider this bill. It is certainly a big change, but big changes can be very good.

The reason I propose this bill is simple: This is a game. In order to make this game interesting, it needs to have an active, vibrant, and combative party structure. Currently we have three real parties, but all of them are vastly confined to a single region (The JCP to the Pacific, the NLC to the Northeast, and the AUB to the Mideast). The rest of Atlasia is made up of a smattering of independents and single member parties that effectively function as independents. The three parties are also generally in agreement on general policy issues (the AUB being a bit of a sticking point here, but the vast majority of members are admittedly liberals like the JCP and NLC).

What does all this mean? The game is kinda boring right now. This is bad.

So I propose this amendment to make the game more interesting. It will cause stronger parties, more fighting, and better elections and coalitions, all of which add up to a better game. Which is what all want, right?

Let me make one final thing clear: In real life, I would strongly, strongly oppose this bill, as I'm sure many of you would as well. But this isn't real life, this is a game. And in order to make this game more interesting again, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.

I look forward to a spirited debate and am very open to changing this around to make it work.

[Colin]

I have to agree with Senator Meeker that, while in real life such a law would be against the interest of any nation, in a fictional, game setting like Atlasia such a law would allow for the party system in Atlasia to develop and mature. I seriously doubt this will pass, but I support it fully.

[MasterJedi]

Even back in the days of actual "parties" they never held any actual power. If someone didn't get the job they just left the party and ran as an independent or started their own, new party. Which is what would happen again but for some reason people won't see that.

[Brandon H]

I would leave Article V, Section 2, Clause 1 as is and remove the definition of political party entirely from the Constitution. Just my opinion.

[Torie]

Ya, I declare I am a member of the Torie Party, or whatever. Now what?  Unless you exclude persons from getting on the ballot (and given our small population that is not much of a handicap, so it would have to one is ineligible to take office) unless one secures the nomination of a party with a minimum number of members, it's meaningless. Would all of that kill Altasia off, or revive it? 
I doubt I would have joined. I ran on my name.

[Meeker]

Master and Torie, read the changes to the second section. You must have five members in your party, so you can't just have these single member parties anymore. There must be some sort of substantial backing.

[Verily]

I like the idea of this bill, but I must agree with Jedi's concern that the existing parties (and indeed any new parties formed or amalgamated as a result of this bill) would be weak to the point of not mattering. Except in cases where people who otherwise don't care about Atlasia vote party for fun, as in the JCP, the parties have no real cohesion or ability to convince their members to do anything. This is simply a result of the small size and high information level of our voting pool; forcing everyone into four or five decent-sized parties won't change that.

[Torie]

How about the merits of my other comments?

[Torie]

I like the idea of this bill, but I must agree with Jedi's concern that the existing parties (and indeed any new parties formed or amalgamated as a result of this bill) would be weak to the point of not mattering. Except in cases where people who otherwise don't care about Atlasia vote party for fun, as in the JCP, the parties have no real cohesion or ability to convince their members to do anything. This is simply a result of the small size and high information level of our voting pool; forcing everyone into four or five decent-sized parties won't change that.

At best, with all of the balls and chains that I outlined, it would just force de facto primary elections, without much due process potentially, unless party nominations were regulated. It might become all elections all the time. Is that what we want?

[Хahar 🤔]

I like the idea of this bill, but I must agree with Jedi's concern that the existing parties (and indeed any new parties formed or amalgamated as a result of this bill) would be weak to the point of not mattering. Except in cases where people who otherwise don't care about Atlasia vote party for fun, as in the JCP, the parties have no real cohesion or ability to convince their members to do anything. This is simply a result of the small size and high information level of our voting pool; forcing everyone into four or five decent-sized parties won't change that.

At best, with all of the balls and chains that I outlined, it would just force de facto primary elections, without much due process potentially, unless party nominations were regulated. It might become all elections all the time. Is that what we want?

This is, above all, an elections game; the government part is secondary. So, my answer to that question is yes.

[Meeker]

We could always require the parties to do something so then they actually have teeth. The Constitution already says that the Senate may decide what benefits an organized party may have - perhaps we could extend that to become "benefits and requirements", such as forcing some sort of party structure and activities?

There was a time where the party structure and competition in this game was good, and I really feel like we can return to that. This certainly isn't a perfect solution, but I think it's really worth a shot.

In my ideal world this change would come in conjunction with other fundamental game changes as well (which is why a Constitutional Convention would be a great idea right about now), but I digress.

[minionofmidas]

I can only call on the sponsor to withdraw this antiatlasian crap. Even if it leaves the Senate (yeah well, from my cold dead hands), I honestly cannot see how it will be ratified by the population of Atlasia.

[Meeker]

I can only call on the sponsor to withdraw this antiatlasian crap. Even if it leaves the Senate (yeah well, from my cold dead hands), I honestly cannot see how it will be ratified by the population of Atlasia.

Could you give a reason other than just calling it crap?

[minionofmidas]

I frankly don't think it's deserving of that much attention.

[Meeker]

I frankly don't think it's deserving of that much attention.

I'm glad you have such respect for your colleagues and the discourse of the Senate. I'll be sure to show your bills the same amount in the future.

[minionofmidas]

I frankly don't think it's deserving of that much attention.

I'm glad you have such respect for your colleagues and the discourse of the Senate. I'll be sure to show your bills the same amount in the future.

It's not as if there were anything to add to the debates about earlier attempts to force similar schemes down our throat.

[Meeker]

I frankly don't think it's deserving of that much attention.

I'm glad you have such respect for your colleagues and the discourse of the Senate. I'll be sure to show your bills the same amount in the future.

It's not as if there were anything to add to the debates about earlier attempts to force similar schemes down our throat.

Then simply say that instead of some vague and snide remark.

[minionofmidas]

Oh whatever, I'll play.

First of all, this amendment does not address the matter of what happens to persons who fail to obey it. Are they to be deregistered? If so, this Amendment has the potential to end Atlasia. Lots of newbies have registered, then only gotten involved (however marginally) weeks or months later, typically after being canvassed as potential voters. Lots of people come back to Atlasia after prolonged absences. Remove these people from voter rolls because their party becomes disorganized or because they fail to register with a party after passage of this amendment, etc, will drastically lower the already small voter pool.
If they aren't to be deregistered, well this Amendment will just be dead letter anyways.

Currently we have three real parties, but all of them are vastly confined to a single region (The JCP to the Pacific, the NLC to the Northeast, and the AUB to the Mideast).

Although the JCP passes this bill's muster (which keeps to the current rules of requiring only size, not activity: intra-party votes and such, which the JCP is wholly lacking), it is not what I would call a real party. It certainly isn't "vibrant".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed. And I'm running out of ideas on how to fix it. At least out of ones that I think might have a chance of passing. Besides, what's boring to one person may not be to another. The Colin/Jas administration's reform agenda much relieved my boredom, and activity levels rose somewhat during that time, but its legacy was then rejected about as soundly as it could be by these newly active voters in the February elections, and the game has slumped to worse depths then ever before since. (At least that's my subjective impression. Not sure how to quantify that.)
It's just that anything with the potential to drive voters away is certainly a step in the wrong direction.