Fusion Ballot Reform Act [LAW'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

sponsor: Libertas
bill slot: 2

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This fusion proposal will give parties and candidates more versatility and introduce another variable to spice up our elections. It gives all parties a chance to play a role, not just the two biggest. Being a New Yorker, fusion voting is one of the few things I like about my state's political system.


The 4th clause gives the parties control over their own ballot line without having to go through the process of kicking people out of the party entirely. I recently saw people complaining in the JCP convention that even if they were to have a primary, there'd be no way to force the loser to withdraw. Under this proposal, the party would be able to decide who their official nominee would be and prohibit someone else from claiming the party's official endorsement on the ballot.


I urge my fellow senators to support this important piece of electoral reform.

[bgwah]

It is an intriguing idea. I had forgot that I mentioned it in another thread. There are a lot of factors to consider. What would someone who runs anyway, despite losing their primary (or having been barred from using the party label), appear as on the ballot if not as a member of their party?

What do you mean by recognized parties? Major parties (last defined as 5 or more members, IIRC)? Surely we would want to avoid 1 man parties clogging up the ballot.

[Bacon King]

This could be an interesting idea.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not a big fan of this proposal.

Yes, currently endorsement votes are practically useless, but this proposal will do absolutely nothing to solve the obligation people feel to endorse people regardless of whether or not they support them or not.

But my biggest concern is that this just institutionalizes zombie-ism. Active voters and even semi-informed voters will make their own decisions and know who the popular and well informed candidates are. They can make decisions themselves without having bright flashing letters (figure of speech, gentlemen) right next to the name blinking "ENDORSED BY: ____" or distorting the party tags by putting several party abbreviations by each other.

The absolute last thing I want is to put on the election rules a provision that basically endorses a follow-the-herd mentality for uninformed or zombie voters.

Also, "parties will be able to prohibit members from running as their official party candidate"? Libertas talks alot about opposing these establishment, but this proposal reeks in it's entirety of an attempt to sway uninformed voters with additional labels and attempts at keeping 'undesirables' off the ballot. Individuals should be able to run with whatever party label they feel like.

This bill: Ugh. Libertas definitely is waging an establishment vs. the individual battle here, but he's on the wrong side fo' sho'.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is an intriguing idea. I had forgot that I mentioned it in another thread. There are a lot of factors to consider. What would someone who runs anyway, despite losing their primary (or having been barred from using the party label), appear as on the ballot if not as a member of their party?

Perhaps independent or let them write in their own, as long as it doesn't coincide with the name of an official party or imply any endorsement by a major party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that language can be amended if you think it would be made clearer that way.


Remember, under our current system, anyone can still run and clog up the ballot, we just end up with confusing repeats of the same party. For example, in the last election, yougo ran for president as a Popularis when the party was supporting Rosetta Stoned, but they were both on the ballot as Populares.

[Fritz]

I disagree with the VP-elect, this is a fine idea.

Parties need the ability to choose for themselves who will run representing the party.  Simply being a party member is not enough.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I disagree with the VP-elect, this is a fine idea.

Parties need the ability to choose for themselves who will run representing the party.  Simply being a party member is not enough.

Thank you for your words of support, Registrar.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think this is actually a good idea; I'd like to see specified the way a Party can keep someone off of their line, though.

[Хahar 🤔]

If we do this, we ought to organize primaries, too.

[Purple State]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. During this election I actually found it peculiar (for the first time) to see party names next to candidates' names. I personally do not think the party names should be on there at all, but if we care enough to put party names on the ballot I don't see why we shouldn't allow fusion ballots.

If we do this, we ought to organize primaries, too.

Why? Let each party do its own organizing around the laws that are set. Promoting cookie-cutter party structures is boring and not exactly needed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. During this election I actually found it peculiar (for the first time) to see party names next to candidates' names. I personally do not think the party names should be on there at all, but if we care enough to put party names on the ballot I don't see why we shouldn't allow fusion ballots.

If we do this, we ought to organize primaries, too.

Why? Let each party do its own organizing around the laws that are set. Promoting cookie-cutter party structures is boring and not exactly needed.

     In Xahar's defense, he didn't say that party primaries should be mandated by law. Merely that they should be organized.

[Purple State]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. During this election I actually found it peculiar (for the first time) to see party names next to candidates' names. I personally do not think the party names should be on there at all, but if we care enough to put party names on the ballot I don't see why we shouldn't allow fusion ballots.

If we do this, we ought to organize primaries, too.

Why? Let each party do its own organizing around the laws that are set. Promoting cookie-cutter party structures is boring and not exactly needed.

     In Xahar's defense, he didn't say that party primaries should be mandated by law. Merely that they should be organized.

Well I know Xahar likes to talk in generalities.

Just in case anyone took it as a signal to push for statutory requirements for party primaries, I thought I would try to nip it in the bud.

[Bacon King]

I agree with the President-Elect. If we're already listing parties on the ballot there's no reason to not give parties control over their ballot line.

[Bacon King]

Also, offering a friendly amendment to change "recognized parties" to "organized political parties," per the earlier suggestion, to sync this up with existing Atlasian law.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Also, offering a friendly amendment to change "recognized parties" to "major parties," per the earlier suggestion, to sync this up with existing Atlasian law.

     I think I should mention that the Constitution uses the term "organized political party", specifically in Article V, Section 1, Clause 8.

[Bacon King]

Also, offering a friendly amendment to change "recognized parties" to "major parties," per the earlier suggestion, to sync this up with existing Atlasian law.

     I think I should mention that the Constitution uses the term "organized political party", specifically in Article V, Section 1, Clause 8.

D'oh, edited my amendment accordingly.

[Badger]

I think this is actually a good idea; I'd like to see specified the way a Party can keep someone off of their line, though.

^^^^ this.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Alright, so how about this:


Fusion Ballot Reform Act

1. Any declared candidate for any office in the Republic of Atlasia may opt to appear on the ballot line for all organized political parties offering the candidate an official endorsement.
2. Official endorsements by parties must be certified by the party giving the endorsement.
3. The SoFA must be notified of the endorsement at least 48 hours in advance of the election by the declared candidate receiving a cross-endorsement.
4. A party shall at its discretion have the right to prohibit any candidate from running on its official ballot line. This is to be accomplished by an officer or chosen representative of the party informing the SoFA of this intention at least 48 hours in advance of the election.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I think this is actually a good idea; I'd like to see specified the way a Party can keep someone off of their line, though.

^^^^ this.

I imagine each party would have to amend their by-laws for a mechanism of their choosing, then present their decision to the SoFE.

[Badger]

I think this is actually a good idea; I'd like to see specified the way a Party can keep someone off of their line, though.

^^^^ this.

I imagine each party would have to amend their by-laws for a mechanism of their choosing, then present their decision to the SoFE.

Should the mechanism be determined by each party or standardized by statute? I'm not certain, but lean towards the latter to avoid confusion and litigation. The statute should at least offer broad guidelines for how the parties can do this.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I think this is actually a good idea; I'd like to see specified the way a Party can keep someone off of their line, though.

^^^^ this.

I imagine each party would have to amend their by-laws for a mechanism of their choosing, then present their decision to the SoFE.

Should the mechanism be determined by each party or standardized by statute? I'm not certain, but lean towards the latter to avoid confusion and litigation. The statute should at least offer broad guidelines for how the parties can do this.

Well, that's up to the Senate, but I'd rather the former.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I prefer leaving the means up to the Parties to decide.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. During this election I actually found it peculiar (for the first time) to see party names next to candidates' names. I personally do not think the party names should be on there at all, but if we care enough to put party names on the ballot I don't see why we shouldn't allow fusion ballots.

If we do this, we ought to organize primaries, too.

Why? Let each party do its own organizing around the laws that are set. Promoting cookie-cutter party structures is boring and not exactly needed.

     In Xahar's defense, he didn't say that party primaries should be mandated by law. Merely that they should be organized.

It would be an interesting idea for them to be mandated, but I was merely observing that primaries ought to be organized.

[bgwah]

My biggest concern is that we'll run into problems with party-run primaries.