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

[bgwah]

I'm giving this a forum affairs slot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsors: Marokai Blue, Duke, Yankee, bgwah

[Mopsus]

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

[Napoleon]

Parties should develop their own infrastructure. No thanks.

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Parties should develop their own infrastructure. No thanks.

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

[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.

[Mopsus]

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.

That makes sense. I think expanding maximum membership to three caucuses would be the best approach, because it allows citizens to join multiple caucuses, while ensuring that they only join ones which deal with issues which are really important to them.

[bgwah]

I feel like this is missing something... I'm going to have to think about possible amendments...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"One caucus at time" seems very controversial. After all, caucus is not a party.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I propose the following, then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mopsus]

I propose the following, then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does Duke have to accept the amendment as friendly since he's a co-sponsor?

[bgwah]

I do think intra-party politics sounds fun, but we've largely seen the anti-RPP conservatives/libertarians and anti-JCP liberals stay out of their respective major parties. I'm not sure this bill would actually give us intra-party politics as long as that remains the case. I'm worried this will be a lot of bureaucratic mess that won't deliver the desired the outcome.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I accept it if I need to. I'm back from my weekend getaway.

[bgwah]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed.

[bgwah]

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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am tilting towards aye on this.

[bgwah]

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...

[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.

[bgwah]

What kind of caucuses do you envision developing though?

Considering you left the JCP, for example, the JCP is probably more internally unified now, lessening the desire anyone might have for a caucus. I guess you and Max can have a two-person "liberal" caucus in the RPP???

[Yelnoc]

What kind of caucuses do you envision developing though?

Considering you left the JCP, for example, the JCP is probably more internally unified now, lessening the desire anyone might have for a caucus. I guess you and Max can have a two-person "liberal" caucus in the RPP???

The Organization for the Advancement of Imperial Interests will organize itself as an "official" cross-party caucus; likely the largest we will see for quite a while.

[Napoleon]

Motion to table

Reason: useless bill

[Yelnoc]

Motion to table

Reason: useless bill

*Chucks peanuts from said gallery*

[Napoleon]

Hey I'm all for displaying political affiliation on ballots. That's what parties are for.