Temporary Headquarters of the Labor Party (Leadership election)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To be perfectly frank about this whole state of affairs, I don't consider it a problem as DFW put it, that the law has apparently protected a bunch of posters from having someone else determine their partisan affiliation for them.

Random act of equal justice under the law. Amazing! But this is considering a crisis, that needs to be fixed.

Am I like Rand Paul or something standing out here as the only one who things freedom of expression and association are the most important priorities here.

[fhtagn]

It would seem rather terrible for people to be registered under a party affiliation they never agreed to based on the vote of 4 people.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Huge shocker that the main forces opposed to a merger are.....the Federalists

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Huge shocker that the main forces opposed to a merger are.....the Federalists

OMG the Federalists actually do believe in the constitution, what a nightmare!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is there an argument that the fact Wallace PMed many Labor members repeatedly to no avail, that this fact means that in essence they got due notice and as such their rights of free association were not abriged?
Bear in mind that many Laborites are zombie voters who only pop up during election time.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Involuntary party registration sounds pretty awful. Its not really any different than presuming that unless they show up to disagree, we can just go ahead and award votes to candidates based on party registration without the need for a real election.

Also, doesnt the fact that the membership threshold for a party being listed would still remain with the current Labor zombies mean the labor party didnt really dissolve? This isnt really the dissolution of the labor party, more a very vocal party change by like 4 people.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Would the argument not be that a new party is being created under the name "Progressive Union", as a combined entity containing both the old "Labor" and "Progressive Union" parties? Due to the fact that Labor is now the new party and the old Progressive Union (should it also vote for this merger) is also now the new party, wouldn't all registrations change to signify that the old parties are now the new PUP, similar to how "Citizens" registrations were automatically changed to "Alliance?

"Equity allows for good faith". Just because Peebs did something under the assumption it as legal, doesn't mean that she intended to break the law, nor does it mean that the law was not broken in that circumstance.

Wait, is the argument then that changing the name of a party from one thing to another (Citizens --> Alliance) constitutes a violation of its members' constitutional rights? Because if so, either the law or the people interpreting it need to be thrown out.

Setting aside whether party mergers are allowable under federal law (which I will admit is an open question, if only because the First Congress was laughably incompetent), I just don't buy the argument that mergers approved by less than 100% of a party's registered members pose an ethical dilemma in relation to citizens' right to freedom of association. Nothing about this vote would prevent anyone from re-establishing "continuity Labor" if they so choose. Nothing, further, prevented them from voting on the question over the 48 hours the poll was open (no, that's not the same thing as awarding votes based on party registration in a general election).

But of course the real question is not whether 24 Atlasians will be forced to join a new party against their will, but whether the Census rolls will be changed to reflect a new reality. The Labor Party is dead. It has been dead for months, for all practical purposes, and the chairman has only just now gotten around to announcing it. The real effect of this vote is to join the leadership and internal infrastructure of the former Labor Party with that of the PUP, as it existed prior to April 5. It would be as if a string ensemble left their former residence to share a space with the orchestra across the street: some out of forgetfulness might continue to arrive at the old space, and the old billboard might still hang above the door, but with the fact of the group moved, the thing which made that space a destination in the first place has gone. Whether this is recognized by the Census Bureau or not, Labor and PUP now exist as a single entity—in all but name. The question, then, is whether the more relevant part of one's registration is the string of letters that come after one's name (which, in the case of "L-a-b-o-r," now signify a nonentity) or the community with which one has chosen to affiliate. Perhaps the law favors the former, but I do think that is a mistake, even as I recognize others may for various reasons voice disagreement with me on that issue.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Griffin himself voted in favor. How many Labor members, gun-to-head, wouldn't have followed in favor? Especially as the party has declined over the past months.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

How many Labor members, gun-to-head, wouldn't have followed in favor?

Well, Jambles made a new one, the absolute madman.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would the argument not be that a new party is being created under the name "Progressive Union", as a combined entity containing both the old "Labor" and "Progressive Union" parties? Due to the fact that Labor is now the new party and the old Progressive Union (should it also vote for this merger) is also now the new party, wouldn't all registrations change to signify that the old parties are now the new PUP, similar to how "Citizens" registrations were automatically changed to "Alliance?

"Equity allows for good faith". Just because Peebs did something under the assumption it as legal, doesn't mean that she intended to break the law, nor does it mean that the law was not broken in that circumstance.

Wait, is the argument then that changing the name of a party from one thing to another (Citizens --> Alliance) constitutes a violation of its members' constitutional rights? Because if so, either the law or the people interpreting it need to be thrown out.

Setting aside whether party mergers are allowable under federal law (which I will admit is an open question, if only because the First Congress was laughably incompetent), I just don't buy the argument that mergers approved by less than 100% of a party's registered members pose an ethical dilemma in relation to citizens' right to freedom of association. Nothing about this vote would prevent anyone from re-establishing "continuity Labor" if they so choose. Nothing, further, prevented them from voting on the question over the 48 hours the poll was open (no, that's not the same thing as awarding votes based on party registration in a general election).

But of course the real question is not whether 24 Atlasians will be forced to join a new party against their will, but whether the Census rolls will be changed to reflect a new reality. The Labor Party is dead. It has been dead for months, for all practical purposes, and the chairman has only just now gotten around to announcing it. The real effect of this vote is to join the leadership and internal infrastructure of the former Labor Party with that of the PUP, as it existed prior to April 5. It would be as if a string ensemble left their former residence to share a space with the orchestra across the street: some out of forgetfulness might continue to arrive at the old space, and the old billboard might still hang above the door, but with the fact of the group moved, the thing which made that space a destination in the first place has gone. Whether this is recognized by the Census Bureau or not, Labor and PUP now exist as a single entity—in all but name. The question, then, is whether the more relevant part of one's registration is the string of letters that come after one's name (which, in the case of "L-a-b-o-r," now signify a nonentity) or the community with which one has chosen to affiliate. Perhaps the law favors the former, but I do think that is a mistake, even as I recognize others may for various reasons voice disagreement with me on that issue.

I didn't say name changes were illegal. I said that we no longer have a statute allowing it like we did pre-reset, which was called the Party Renaming Act. It explicility allowed for a party to rename itself, and for the rolls to be changed to the new name, but 51% of current members had to vote in it to be valid.


There was also a pre-reset law called the Party Sublimation Act, which allowed for dissolutions and I think mergers, but I might be mistaken. It took allowed for the renaming of the members on the rolls.

These two laws no longer exist and for a while people were continuing to operate in game as if they had.

Irrelevant to that point, Yes I Personally I think every merger/dissolution by majority vote is unethical. And I have been consistent on this.
In early 2009, I opposed the merger of the SDP and JCP because it would imbalance the game - I was right, JCP won 9/12 Senate specials and 6 out of 8 President Elections
In Dec 2009 - Feb 2010, I refused any attempts to dissolve the RPP, and we recovered
In July 2010, I opposed the dissolution of the Democratic Alliance
In 2011, Duke and I opposed merging with the Populares
In 2012, I was basically forced at gun point to accept dissolution of the RPP "for the good of the game" because bgwah was too much of a narcissist to let JCP go without taking us down too (we would have down sized automatically as anti-JCPers left like Marokai).
In Aug 2012, Jbrase and I helped kill a proposal to merge the IB and the Whigs. When it was proposed again in November, neither of us voted for it.
In 2013, I opposed the dissolution of The People's Party the first time
In 2014 I opposed the dissolution of the original Progressive Union
In 2015 I steadfastly refused to consider any dissolution discussion of the Federalist Party. I would say I made the right call.
As you may recall, I even stated opposition to the second TPP's dissolution.
In 2017 with UA
And now in 2018 with Labor.

I have consistently opposed artificial alteration of partisan registration for almost ten years in this game. Most of the time, they were complete unnecessary, avoidable or even damaging to the game in some way and even if they aren't, if someone wants to like Angus for the Populares/Popular Liberty Party or Smoltchanov for the Liberals, want to stay on the rolls with their original registration unchanged, they have a right do so.

I have had the same unchanged registration since February 2012, and only over my dead body is someone going to be allowed to change that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Griffin himself voted in favor. How many Labor members, gun-to-head, wouldn't have followed in favor? Especially as the party has declined over the past months.

Man does this confirm so many prejudices:

So one person voting aye is going to change the registrations of over 20 Atlasians?

So in the end we finally learn the truth.


"The Party decides what the people think, an elite decides what the party thinks, a central committtee decides what the elite thinks, and Lenin Adam decides what they all think".


#LaborisRed

That is not the point Tim Turner. It is matter of principle, legacy and freedom.

If you cannot get them to voluntarily reregister that means two things

1) They are zombies who will fall off the rolls soon anyway.
2) Don't want to join.

It doesn't mean you have the right to force them.

Honestly, this thought process is why the left alienates so many people and why the best thing that could ever happen to the GOP is for the Democrats to have ten years free reign. The Democrats will solve all of the GOP's demographic problems with their condescending, controlling, and alienating attitude on many of their own supporters.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, so in summary:

It would seem rather terrible for people to be registered under a party affiliation they never agreed to based on the vote of 4 people.

This is fair;

Honestly, this thought process is why the left alienates so many people and why the best thing that could ever happen to the GOP is for the Democrats to have ten years free reign. The Democrats will solve all of the GOP's demographic problems with their condescending, controlling, and alienating attitude on many of their own supporters.

this would be a lot more powerful if it weren't, you know, equally true in reverse.

[Lumine]

No offense, Yankee, but this continued, relentless demonization of dissolution or merging of parties doesn't seem all that healthy for the game considering that there are substantial benefits to the party system changing. Of course there have been several dissolutions that may have been a mistake, but that is not to say all of them have been (although for the record I would agree with you that dissolution of Labor will probably not be for the best).

Having said that, I think Atlasia works better when there's a multi-party system instead of just two big parties (one of which is generally a dominant one), so in this case I would note my concern that a Federalist v. PUP era features a repeat of the long Federalist v. Labor era.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No offense, Yankee, but this continued, relentless demonization of dissolution or merging of parties doesn't seem all that healthy for the game considering that there are substantial benefits to the party system changing. Of course there have been several dissolutions that may have been a mistake, but that is not to say all of them have been (although for the record I would agree with you that dissolution of Labor will probably not be for the best).

Having said that, I think Atlasia works better when there's a multi-party system instead of just two big parties (one of which is generally a dominant one), so in this case I would note my concern that a Federalist v. PUP era features a repeat of the long Federalist v. Labor era.

For the first part, the most important priority is freedom of choice more so than good for the game. The idea that these two could be at odds, is ridiculous. Having people in parties of their own choice is the most healthy situation for the game possible.

And guess what, three times I was the only one arguing for a preservation of the multi-party system, precisely because I opposed the dissolution of the third and fourth party. I wanted the original PU to continue, the DRs to continue the DA to continue, the UDL to continue, TPP to continue etc. Part of the reason why we default to two parties is 1) the right doesn't like to get steam rolled by the center-left (Oct 2012), 2) the left gets spooked every time an evil Conservative wins (Feb 2011 when Tmth won the Presidency) and three, the typically smaller centrist parties run out of steam but rather than preserve the tradition and plot a revival, they always dissolve. You cannot fix a problem caused by such artificial alterations with more such artificial alterations of the partisan landscape. The political landscape is an organic phenomenon created by freely expressed political views, freely associated with one another. The sooner people stop trying to artificially re-engineer it to their liking through these heavy handed and thuggish tactics, the sooner the political landscape of the game will strengthen and improve long term.

The Federalist Party continues to exist because we are great at adapting to the changing climate and at representing our members at any given time (Check the polling data I leaked in the Trillionth Fed Party thread).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Right, so in summary:

It would seem rather terrible for people to be registered under a party affiliation they never agreed to based on the vote of 4 people.

This is fair;

Honestly, this thought process is why the left alienates so many people and why the best thing that could ever happen to the GOP is for the Democrats to have ten years free reign. The Democrats will solve all of the GOP's demographic problems with their condescending, controlling, and alienating attitude on many of their own supporters.

this would be a lot more powerful if it weren't, you know, equally true in reverse.

Of course it is true in reverse Truman. I said as much the last time we were discussing history of politics in one of the chats when you were present.

The seeds of the other party's rise to power is planted in the ruling party's alienation of some demographic who less well served then the other members of that coalition. They feel under served and begin to migrate to the other party.

Like Middle class Irish, Italians, Germans and Southerners going to the GOP in the mid 20th century, yankee whites, high end secular suburbanites and secular blue collar workers shifting to the Dems in the late 20th century.

It is a constant process.

[wxtransit]

No offense, Yankee, but this continued, relentless demonization of dissolution or merging of parties doesn't seem all that healthy for the game considering that there are substantial benefits to the party system changing. Of course there have been several dissolutions that may have been a mistake, but that is not to say all of them have been (although for the record I would agree with you that dissolution of Labor will probably not be for the best).

Having said that, I think Atlasia works better when there's a multi-party system instead of just two big parties (one of which is generally a dominant one), so in this case I would note my concern that a Federalist v. PUP era features a repeat of the long Federalist v. Labor era.

For the first part, the most important priority is freedom of choice more so than good for the game. The idea that these two could be at odds, is ridiculous. Having people in parties of their own choice is the most healthy situation for the game possible.

And guess what, three times I was the only one arguing for a preservation of the multi-party system, precisely because I opposed the dissolution of the third and fourth party. I wanted the original PU to continue, the DRs to continue the DA to continue, the UDL to continue, TPP to continue etc. Part of the reason why we default to two parties is 1) the right doesn't like to get steam rolled by the center-left (Oct 2012), 2) the left gets spooked every time an evil Conservative wins (Feb 2011 when Tmth won the Presidency) and three, the typically smaller centrist parties run out of steam but rather than preserve the tradition and plot a revival, they always dissolve. You cannot fix a problem caused by such artificial alterations with more such artificial alterations of the partisan landscape. The political landscape is an organic phenomenon created by freely expressed political views, freely associated with one another. The sooner people stop trying to artificially re-engineer it to their liking through these heavy handed and thuggish tactics, the sooner the political landscape of the game will strengthen and improve long term.

The Federalist Party continues to exist because we are great at adapting to the changing climate and at representing our members at any given time (Check the polling data I leaked in the Trillionth Fed Party thread).

Trust me, as long as I am at the helm of Alliance, I will do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.

[Pericles]

No offense, Yankee, but this continued, relentless demonization of dissolution or merging of parties doesn't seem all that healthy for the game considering that there are substantial benefits to the party system changing. Of course there have been several dissolutions that may have been a mistake, but that is not to say all of them have been (although for the record I would agree with you that dissolution of Labor will probably not be for the best).

Having said that, I think Atlasia works better when there's a multi-party system instead of just two big parties (one of which is generally a dominant one), so in this case I would note my concern that a Federalist v. PUP era features a repeat of the long Federalist v. Labor era.

For the first part, the most important priority is freedom of choice more so than good for the game. The idea that these two could be at odds, is ridiculous. Having people in parties of their own choice is the most healthy situation for the game possible.

And guess what, three times I was the only one arguing for a preservation of the multi-party system, precisely because I opposed the dissolution of the third and fourth party. I wanted the original PU to continue, the DRs to continue the DA to continue, the UDL to continue, TPP to continue etc. Part of the reason why we default to two parties is 1) the right doesn't like to get steam rolled by the center-left (Oct 2012), 2) the left gets spooked every time an evil Conservative wins (Feb 2011 when Tmth won the Presidency) and three, the typically smaller centrist parties run out of steam but rather than preserve the tradition and plot a revival, they always dissolve. You cannot fix a problem caused by such artificial alterations with more such artificial alterations of the partisan landscape. The political landscape is an organic phenomenon created by freely expressed political views, freely associated with one another. The sooner people stop trying to artificially re-engineer it to their liking through these heavy handed and thuggish tactics, the sooner the political landscape of the game will strengthen and improve long term.

The Federalist Party continues to exist because we are great at adapting to the changing climate and at representing our members at any given time (Check the polling data I leaked in the Trillionth Fed Party thread).

Trust me, as long as I am at the helm of Alliance, I will do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.

Rest assured, I will also vehemently oppose any attempt to merge the Alliance with PUP should that scenario arise.

[wxtransit]

No offense, Yankee, but this continued, relentless demonization of dissolution or merging of parties doesn't seem all that healthy for the game considering that there are substantial benefits to the party system changing. Of course there have been several dissolutions that may have been a mistake, but that is not to say all of them have been (although for the record I would agree with you that dissolution of Labor will probably not be for the best).

Having said that, I think Atlasia works better when there's a multi-party system instead of just two big parties (one of which is generally a dominant one), so in this case I would note my concern that a Federalist v. PUP era features a repeat of the long Federalist v. Labor era.

For the first part, the most important priority is freedom of choice more so than good for the game. The idea that these two could be at odds, is ridiculous. Having people in parties of their own choice is the most healthy situation for the game possible.

And guess what, three times I was the only one arguing for a preservation of the multi-party system, precisely because I opposed the dissolution of the third and fourth party. I wanted the original PU to continue, the DRs to continue the DA to continue, the UDL to continue, TPP to continue etc. Part of the reason why we default to two parties is 1) the right doesn't like to get steam rolled by the center-left (Oct 2012), 2) the left gets spooked every time an evil Conservative wins (Feb 2011 when Tmth won the Presidency) and three, the typically smaller centrist parties run out of steam but rather than preserve the tradition and plot a revival, they always dissolve. You cannot fix a problem caused by such artificial alterations with more such artificial alterations of the partisan landscape. The political landscape is an organic phenomenon created by freely expressed political views, freely associated with one another. The sooner people stop trying to artificially re-engineer it to their liking through these heavy handed and thuggish tactics, the sooner the political landscape of the game will strengthen and improve long term.

The Federalist Party continues to exist because we are great at adapting to the changing climate and at representing our members at any given time (Check the polling data I leaked in the Trillionth Fed Party thread).

Trust me, as long as I am at the helm of Alliance, I will do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.

Rest assured, I will also vehemently oppose any attempt to merge the Alliance with PUP should that scenario arise.

Wait, why would we merge with the PUP?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No offense, Yankee, but this continued, relentless demonization of dissolution or merging of parties doesn't seem all that healthy for the game considering that there are substantial benefits to the party system changing. Of course there have been several dissolutions that may have been a mistake, but that is not to say all of them have been (although for the record I would agree with you that dissolution of Labor will probably not be for the best).

Having said that, I think Atlasia works better when there's a multi-party system instead of just two big parties (one of which is generally a dominant one), so in this case I would note my concern that a Federalist v. PUP era features a repeat of the long Federalist v. Labor era.

For the first part, the most important priority is freedom of choice more so than good for the game. The idea that these two could be at odds, is ridiculous. Having people in parties of their own choice is the most healthy situation for the game possible.

And guess what, three times I was the only one arguing for a preservation of the multi-party system, precisely because I opposed the dissolution of the third and fourth party. I wanted the original PU to continue, the DRs to continue the DA to continue, the UDL to continue, TPP to continue etc. Part of the reason why we default to two parties is 1) the right doesn't like to get steam rolled by the center-left (Oct 2012), 2) the left gets spooked every time an evil Conservative wins (Feb 2011 when Tmth won the Presidency) and three, the typically smaller centrist parties run out of steam but rather than preserve the tradition and plot a revival, they always dissolve. You cannot fix a problem caused by such artificial alterations with more such artificial alterations of the partisan landscape. The political landscape is an organic phenomenon created by freely expressed political views, freely associated with one another. The sooner people stop trying to artificially re-engineer it to their liking through these heavy handed and thuggish tactics, the sooner the political landscape of the game will strengthen and improve long term.

The Federalist Party continues to exist because we are great at adapting to the changing climate and at representing our members at any given time (Check the polling data I leaked in the Trillionth Fed Party thread).

Trust me, as long as I am at the helm of Alliance, I will do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.

Rest assured, I will also vehemently oppose any attempt to merge the Alliance with PUP should that scenario arise.

Wait, why would we merge with the PUP?

Insert lame joke about commie parties wanting a single party state.

[Poirot]

I am uneasy with changing the registration of a big group of people maybe with them not being aware of it. I imagine someone coming back in two months to discover they are now part of a party they don't even know. Maybe they would prefer to be registered with the same old party, maybe join another or be independent.

Maybe the reality is they are a bunch of sheep who don't follow the game, are registered because someone asked them to and they follow someone's order to post a ballot when told to and don't care about registration.

It would have been easier the other way around, for PUP to join Labor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am uneasy with changing the registration of a big group of people maybe with them not being aware of it. I imagine someone coming back in two months to discover they are now part of a party they don't even know. Maybe they would prefer to be registered with the same old party, maybe join another or be independent.

Maybe the reality is they are a bunch of sheep who don't follow the game, are registered because someone asked them to and they follow someone's order to post a ballot when told to and don't care about registration.

It would have been easier the other way around, for PUP to join Labor.

Did PUP even vote on this merger?

[Poirot]

More like a party deciding to close and join another.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

More like a party deciding to close and join another.

Wait hold on. So the PUP could just vote to join us and it be so when we never vote to allow that?

That can't be legal.

[Sirius_]

More like a party deciding to close and join another.

Wait hold on. So the PUP could just vote to join us and it be so when we never vote to allow that?

That can't be legal.

Everybody in PUP can just re-register as a Fed and it would be legal without the party agreeing to it. So I don't see what's illegal about it.

[Sestak]

More like a party deciding to close and join another.

Wait hold on. So the PUP could just vote to join us and it be so when we never vote to allow that?

That can't be legal.

Everybody in PUP can just re-register as a Fed and it would be legal without the party agreeing to it. So I don't see what's illegal about it.

This is an objectively good idea and PUP should definitely do it.