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

[Marokai Backbeat]

Parties should develop their own infrastructure. No thanks.

This has nothing to do with political parties and there is no excuse why this should be opposed on those grounds. Amended, totally fine, but outright opposed? I'm curious about the motivation there.

Bgwah and others like to talk and talk about how we should try to encourage inner-party politics as the new scene for Atlasian political drama, but you seem to go white-faced terrified at the prospect of making that sort of thing legally established. I don't get it. If you like it in the abstract, why is it unacceptable when you get down to the specific?

A new level of politics isn't going to just spontaneously occur on it's own, it needs to be given the ability to actually form. Caucuses and other proposals in the same ballpark (like legally established primaries) only give people (and parties) more options. Inter-party politics has practically died off completely in the last year as something exciting and motivating. This has the potential to create a new tier of politics above political parties; which is why opposing it on party grounds is silly, and also kind of telling. The point is creating politics beyond parties battling parties.

You make something legally established, and suddenly a lot of people are going to take notice of it. You put it on the ballot, and suddenly people are going to be a lot more interested in finding out what specific caucuses are and stand for. That could be really exciting and add another interesting dynamic to Atlasian politics that is currently starving for something new to latch onto.

tl;dr version: This has nothing to do with political parties, it's completely separate institutions and for a reason. Opposing it on party-grounds makes me feel like it's being opposed not on it's merits, but rather, because you fear it, or the potential impact of it.

I don't quite understand the logic behind restricting people to only one caucus each.

I'm not opposed to expanding the number of allowed caucus memberships, but I would have concerns over ballot crowding if expanded to more than three. Caucuses can self-regulate under this proposal, so I'm not really worried about the idea of people joining conflicting caucuses. Perhaps expanding it to two, or three? I do think it should have a limit, if caucus membership is to mean something.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Parties should develop their own infrastructure. No thanks.

On the other hand, parties and it's very definitions are subjected to the law.

Indeed, and have been allowed to grow because of the law granting them more of a legal infrastructure. Parties can now officially change their name, grant endorsements that appear on the ballot, and legally regulate their membership, because we (the Senate) developed that infrastructure.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I propose the following, then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Are we ready for a final vote? I'm still undecided on how I will vote...

The way I see it, it can't hurt to implement this. We need something to increase activity in the game, and if this can do it, so be it, but it isn't like it will send shockwaves through the current party system.

Might as well just ban the major parties...

Oh come on. No one is suggesting anything of the sort nor does this proposal come anywhere close to doing that.

People talk and talk about wanting new things. About wanting things to be interesting. About wanting politics on a different level than just between parties, but within them and above them. If that's the case, there are precious few things you can do if even this is objectionable, and it's time for people who say those things to put their money where there mouth is. (I don't know who came up with that expression, but whatever.)

What's the worst this could possibly do even if it is a catastrophic failure, anyway? Let's at least try something.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

Why is this motion to table even seriously getting voted on? I'm sick and tired of Napoleon prancing into threads he doesn't even care about anymore and trying to delay it to death. It's obvious people don't want to table the bill, he knows that, and yet he does it anyway.

And I've yet to see any serious argument against this proposal other than "Nope! Comes from him! Ew! Vote it down!" This is a purely expansionary proposal, that has absolutely no negative side effects, that restricts people from nothing. It gives people more options, potentially allows new politics to form around the current structure (that people refuse to admit is flawed in any way) and lets something new grow for a change. I've seen no argument against any of that except "no, no, no, no."

Seriously. I'm tired of this. You want to oppose me to death, fine, but have the balls to admit why you're doing it, instead of coming up with some new and convoluted explanation as to why an idea I have is bad, which happens every time I propose something new. Every single time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Quit lying please.

Quit lying? What argument have you provided against this idea except "Nope! Don't like it!" ? I've seen absolutely nothing of value from you on this topic or any other reform proposal. You vote all or them, or very nearly all of them, down, without so much as a simple explanation why. It's pathetic.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This bill wouldn't be necessary if my proposal were to become a reality.

Eggs in one basket, eh?

Indeed. And changing one's vote or position entirely on the basis of a proposal that isn't even a real thing yet seems ridiculous.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Napoleon doesn't like Marokai. Marokai doesn't like Napoleon. We all know that. Now both of you could really shut up.

Perhaps when he stops wasting the entire Senate's time with pointless tabling motions, then complaining about him will no longer be justified.

This bill wouldn't be necessary if my proposal were to become a reality.

Eggs in one basket, eh?

Indeed. And changing one's vote or position entirely on the basis of a proposal that isn't even a real thing yet seems ridiculous.

The thing is, I'd much rather wait and see what happens with my proposal before  committing to this.

I understand that entirely, but your proposal isn't even on paper yet and whether it can get agreement in even just one of the parties remains a big question. Shooting down current proposals with much more agreement is a bit shortsighted, IMO.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And it would make caucuses entirely pointless. Great job, guys.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I offer this amendment to section 2b

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think if you wanna have a caucus just within one party it is fine. Its not like multi-party caucuses wouldn't also exist.

Sponsor(s)?

I.. accept this as friendly. I can tolerate this is it makes people more likely to vote for it. It still allows for inner and intra party caucuses to both exist.

But I will not accept any sort of amendment that tries to make caucuses inner-party organizations only. That's a ridiculous restriction that doesn't even make sense. Do some of you fear political parties losing any power at all that much? Giving people the option of an intra-party caucus hurts absolutely no one. There are no negative consequences to that whatsoever.

Like I said, I will accept Jbrase's amendment. It allows for both to exist. I will not, however, vote for any final version that tries to form caucuses into inner-party organizations only.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I realize the similarities, but they are that way for a reason. 5 members is a reasonable amount. Appearing on the ballot makes them actually matter and be noticed. Having similar regulatory powers as a party only makes sense for any established organization to have.

I know you have your idea elsewhere. It's a great idea, I like it, I want my party to stop being so reactionary to any JCP idea and give it a shot as well. But you are holding up an actual idea that might change things and be interesting right at this very second in favor of an idea no one has written down on paper that has gotten absolutely no formal vote so far.

And what happens if we go through with your idea, and parties almost immediately devolve back to a two party system within a couple of election cycles? You idea is great, but there are ABSOLUTELY no safeguards to prevent the system to coming right back to what it is now. Your idea is an interesting refresh, but my idea changes the actual political system to include more organizations that are more varied and issue-focused.

That is precisely what our current system, which is obsessed with ever-broadening parties that vote for their people no matter what, needs! And giving people the OPTION (read as: not forcing anyone to do anything if they don't want to) to form organizations that cross current party lines is the only way to achieve any sort of safety net to making a two-party system less likely.

Caucuses were meant to resemble parties, but not be partisan. That was the hold point of this proposal. To encourage factionalization of the current party system, make our debates more issue focused, and maybe, cross my fingers, lead to a weakening of the current behemoth parties. Making them partisan is what makes this pointless. If you would give my idea a chance, for once, you might have something different happen, instead of shooting more and more ideas down in favor of your long-shot idea that hasn't had any sort of agreement!

Do you want to put your name on this? If we make you and the rest of the JCP a co-sponsor to this proposal so you can take all the credit, will it make you more likely to be in favor?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I know you may feel like you burned your bridges with the JCP, but really Marokai, just re-join the party. I certainly don't mind. There's no reason to create this bizarre shadow party system to skirt around the issue.

You left the JCP because you were bored of the party system, or so you claimed at the time. And there were of course lots of personal issues.

But now, the JCP is obviously more in line with you on this issue than the RPP is. Far more. Not to mention the fact that you're a left-winger. And I think most of us are over whatever hard feelings there were a year ago.

Your leadership may be making alot of talk about being in favor of your idea, but I would be surprised if your rank and file membership voted more in favor of the idea than the RPP's. In some way, we have the opposite problem. Our members are fairly open to it, but the leadership isn't. Your leadership favors it, but several of your members don't seem to.

I left the JCP because the party system sucks and the game needed to change. I tried to accomplish that with a new party. Now, a year later, you ride up on your white horse trying to act like you've recognized this all along and you have the solution. As if the JCP have been the reformers all along.

I want this game to change in some fundamental way. Then I will look into changing parties. And no, it really isn't anything personal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Okay, Bgwah. Let's have it your way. I will support your amended version of a caucus proposal. But if caucuses go nowhere under those restrictions, we will likely end up right here debating inter-party caucuses yet again.

[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.

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I accept as friendly. Jerk.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have no problem adopting you two as Sponsors, if that helps the process move along.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye!

[Marokai Backbeat]

x Snowguy716

We'll see if this takes hold and works out!

/cheer