Sublimation Act [LAW'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senators Dallasfan
Bill Slot: #1

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm going to continue my tradition of complaining about laws concerning party organization because I don't view it as a proper place to butt in, and by questioning the constitutionality of this Act.

We define a party as a group of five members with the same title. Even if individuals wanted to remain a member of this party, they would be prevented to for no reason. It shouldn't matter if a majority of members or the leadership wants to dissolve the party if there are enough people who want to continue the party name.

If a party is dissolved, and a member specifically registers again with the exact same name, would that mean that individual is prohibited from remaining in the party? If not, what is the point of this law to begin with? Someone's desire to be in a party called the "Democratic Alliance" would be overruled by some silly party vote on dissolving itself and people would be forced to go independent? Why? How can you justify that?

If someone wishes to keep the label or doesn't consider it important enough to re-register, there is no justification as to why their desires to take a party label of their choice should be completely disregarded just for some teensy little convenience.

I don't like this at all. I don't like overriding individual's own desires in party matters nor do I like granting parties certain Senate-sanctioned power to restrict the free will of the citizens. Of course, this will surely pass, regardless of what I think, because everyone loves the idea of giving parties more and more power at the expense of others.

[tmthforu94]

How about if people wanted to stay in that party, they could just re-join it after becoming Independent? I think the purpose of this bill is so you don't have a party with some inactive members or zombie voters disband and then have 10-15 members stay in the party for a long period of time. You make an excellent argument though, Marokai.

[Marokai Backbeat]

How about if people wanted to stay in that party, they could just re-join it after becoming Independent?

That makes it more reasonable I suppose but also makes the bill a bit pointless if people could just immediately re-register in the old party name.

[Хahar 🤔]

How about if people wanted to stay in that party, they could just re-join it after becoming Independent?

That makes it more reasonable I suppose but also makes the bill a bit pointless if people could just immediately re-register in the old party name.

No, it doesn't. Oftentimes many of the party members are inactive. They won't reregister, and the voter rolls will be cleaner.

[Fritz]

That was how I plan to interpret this.  Any member of the former DA who still bears that party name would become independent, but no one would be prohibited from registering with the party name ""Democratic Alliance" thereafter.

[Purple State]

I agree with Fritz's understanding of this legislation. By dissolving a party, you won't be "retiring the name" so to speak. It could always be resurrected by a large enough group of people that wish to re-register under that banner.

I would just ask that the portion in parentheses in clause 1 be de-parenthesized and made more prominent. It is very important that this only be a viable option if such a provision exists in the by-law of the party.

As for the constitutionality of this (and similar) legislation, that is something I think we should address in the Convention, to allow more flexible regulation of DoFA-party interaction. At the end of the day, we need to be able to legislate in ways that make it easier for parties to work with DoFA.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This seems well-intentioned; I'm just unsure about the idea of forcibly de-registering active Atlasians from their party.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Hey guys, sorry I've been MIA for the past day.

Anywho, to address the concerns of Marokai;

The intent of this legislation is not to ban any party name, but rather just dissolve - there would be nothing stopping someone from re-registering under the party name moments later if they wished to see it live on. This just to prevent old parties that are de-facto eliminated from cluttering up voter rolls.

If there's any concern, I'll accept a friendly amendment specifically stating that one is welcome to reregister under their old banner.

[bgwah]

I echo Marokai's sentiments... Perhaps it would be better to bring this up in the Constitutional convention.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My own personal opinion is that the entire legislative structure relating to political parties here is insane and needs urgent repeal.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I echo Marokai's sentiments... Perhaps it would be better to bring this up in the Constitutional convention.

I suppose that might be best, if a majority of Senators are of that opinion.

[Junkie]

Just my thoughts, but I see no legal or constitutional problem with this legislation.  Voters can register anyway or under "party" name they want.  It is my understanding that this bill would only serve to clarify the voting roles.  If a party dissolves, then any voter choosing to remain under that name is defacto independant anyway, as in not affiliated with a party.  That member can choose to restart the party or make it a party of one.  No one is stopping them.

On another note, I don't really know if you want "parties" which are purely political associations to be written into the Constitution.  I think that is better to be handled outside of the governmental realm.  Parties are groupings of people who come together for whatever purpose.  Is it really a good idea to start having the Constitution regulating their formulation?

[Fritz]

We have several laws regulating parties, and in Atlasia, I think its appropriate that we should.

As the RG I stand in favor of this bill.  It eliminates a party whose remaining members are either inactive and are unaware that the party has dissolved, or who are just too lazy to update their registration.  It cleans up the voter rolls, and infringes upon the rights of no one.  I see only benefits to this, there is no down side.

[Junkie]

We have several laws regulating parties, and in Atlasia, I think its appropriate that we should.

As the RG I stand in favor of this bill.  It eliminates a party whose remaining members are either inactive and are unaware that the party has dissolved, or who are just too lazy to update their registration.  It cleans up the voter rolls, and infringes upon the rights of no one.  I see only benefits to this, there is no down side.

I probably should have been more clear.  I think this is a good idea and see no legal problems with it.  I also have no problem with laws regulating parties.  I do have a problem with the Constitution specifically regulating the issue.  Having the Constitution deal with a political organization does not sit well.  I was just addressing the comment that this issue should be dealt with in the constitutional convention.

In the end, I agree with the bill and see no legal issues with it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is a reasonable project which would help the RG to maintain a proper voting rolls.

[Marokai Backbeat]

All reasonable posts here.

But I at least think it should be pointed out in the Act that individuals will be free to reregister in the old party's name is they want to after it's been dissolved. Just a simple one-line-clause will be fine and will clear it up.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

All reasonable posts here.

But I at least think it should be pointed out in the Act that individuals will be free to reregister in the old party's name is they want to after it's been dissolved. Just a simple one-line-clause will be fine and will clear it up.

That was the intent, but I would accept an amendment specifying that.

I'm a bit wet behind the ears still on official procedure - may I offer an amendment to my own bill or does another Senator have to do that?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Should we maybe come up with a separate category to distinguish de-registered voters from people who chose to register Independent?

Maybe just register them as "No Party" or "Not Enrolled in Party" until they choose to re-register?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Should we maybe come up with a separate category to distinguish de-registered voters from people who chose to register Independent?

Maybe just register them as "No Party" or "Not Enrolled in Party" until they choose to re-register?

I don't see why that'd be necessary... "Independent" is essentially the same as "Not Enrolled In Party" (it's the official term for Independent in Massachusetts)

[Marokai Backbeat]

All reasonable posts here.

But I at least think it should be pointed out in the Act that individuals will be free to reregister in the old party's name is they want to after it's been dissolved. Just a simple one-line-clause will be fine and will clear it up.

That was the intent, but I would accept an amendment specifying that.

I'm a bit wet behind the ears still on official procedure - may I offer an amendment to my own bill or does another Senator have to do that?

If you offer an amendment to your own bill it's interpreted as a friendly amendment, meaning that it's automatically the case after 24 hours unless someone objects.

I suggest the following: "4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing individuals from re-registering under their previously dissolved party name should they choose to do so."

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

All reasonable posts here.

But I at least think it should be pointed out in the Act that individuals will be free to reregister in the old party's name is they want to after it's been dissolved. Just a simple one-line-clause will be fine and will clear it up.

That was the intent, but I would accept an amendment specifying that.

I'm a bit wet behind the ears still on official procedure - may I offer an amendment to my own bill or does another Senator have to do that?

If you offer an amendment to your own bill it's interpreted as a friendly amendment, meaning that it's automatically the case after 24 hours unless someone objects.

I suggest the following: "4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing individuals from re-registering under their previously dissolved party name should they choose to do so."

Thanks.

I offer an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Should we maybe come up with a separate category to distinguish de-registered voters from people who chose to register Independent?

Maybe just register them as "No Party" or "Not Enrolled in Party" until they choose to re-register?

I don't see why that'd be necessary... "Independent" is essentially the same as "Not Enrolled In Party" (it's the official term for Independent in Massachusetts)

The difference is that people here make the deliberate decision to register as Independent. It's a recognized and likely permanent category of people, as enduring as any party, who posted their enrollment in the New Register thread explicitly as Independent.

With this bill we're talking about folks who just got forcibly booted out of their party. My whole problem with the original language here is that it treats the Independent category like a garbage can where people are sent who will either re-affiliate or languish for months until they are removed from the voter rolls. These people are not true Independents; they just don't have a party anymore.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Anyway, for the record, I will probably vote in favor of this bill anyway, just figured it was worth a try to raise some of my concerns.

Perhaps it's the RL independent in me objecting to the lack of distinction this would make between people who, out of principle, chose to register as Independent; and those who just happened to get kicked out of their old parties. I hope that makes some sense.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Should we maybe come up with a separate category to distinguish de-registered voters from people who chose to register Independent?

Maybe just register them as "No Party" or "Not Enrolled in Party" until they choose to re-register?

I don't see why that'd be necessary... "Independent" is essentially the same as "Not Enrolled In Party" (it's the official term for Independent in Massachusetts)

The difference is that people here make the deliberate decision to register as Independent. It's a recognized and likely permanent category of people, as enduring as any party, who posted their enrollment in the New Register thread explicitly as Independent.

With this bill we're talking about folks who just got forcibly booted out of their party. My whole problem with the original language here is that it treats the Independent category like a garbage can where people are sent who will either re-affiliate or languish for months until they are removed from the voter rolls. These people are not true Independents; they just don't have a party anymore.

The Independent category is for people who either don't have a party, or do not wish to be in a party. I fail to see why the Independent brand would somehow be tainted by ex-Party Members who, either temporarily or permanently were registered as Independent.

I have respect for those who are registered Independent, but this doesn't sully the Independent brand. One who is truly independent would not be dragged down or effected by someone else who wound up in the Independent registration by dint of circumstance.

Anyway, for the record, I will probably vote in favor of this bill anyway, just figured it was worth a try to raise some of my concerns.

Perhaps it's the RL independent in me objecting to the lack of distinction this would make between people who, out of principle, chose to register as Independent; and those who just happened to get kicked out of their old parties. I hope that makes some sense.

I appreciate it, and I understand your concerns.

A bit of debate like this is healthy for the Senate.