Amendment to the Caucus Infrastructure and Formation Act [Rejected]

[Marokai]

Amendment to the Caucus Infrastructure and Formation Act

Section 1: Procedure & Implementation

1. Citizens may now register official organizations known as a "Caucus" with the Registrar General and Census Bureau.

2. Membership in a caucus is optional and no restrictions may be placed on membership beyond limiting citizens to registering membership in no more than three caucuses. Leadership and administrative functions of a caucus shall be determined by the caucus itself.

3. A caucus shall be considered an "established caucus" when it gains five or more members.

4. To register as a member of a caucus, a citizen must declare their membership in the New Register Thread in accordance with the Register Thread Act

Section 2: Powers & Privileges

1. "Established" caucus names shall appear on election ballots next to the candidate's party. The Secretary of Federal Elections shall ensure that parties and caucuses are distinguished, such as by not but limited to different text sizes and bold text.

2. Caucuses shall have the same powers of name-changing and membership regulating as political parties in accordance with the Party Name Change Act and Party Empowerment Act, respectively.

(Slot: Forum Affairs/Emergency)
(I'm interpreting these as forum affairs laws, and holding off on introducing any of the other amendments to that act to avoid confusion, because there's two more amendments to the original Act in the que right now and that could all be a clusterfukc.)

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

[MOPolitico]

Now that the two parties have agreed to dissolve, there isn't really any reason to oppose this.

[Senator Napoleon]

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who votes in favor of this bill is an idiot. There isn't even a point in having parties when you have other parties undermining that. Keep your caucuses off of my ballot!

[Senator Napoleon]

Now that the two parties have agreed to dissolve, there isn't really any reason to oppose this.

So the new parties don't deserve any sort of legitimacy? Definitely not fair. People can have their stupid multiparty caucuses and they can also keep them off of ballots, the way any normal democracy functions. Or else why even limit caucuses? Why not five caucuses? Three caucuses certainly isn't enough.

[MOPolitico]

Now that the two parties have agreed to dissolve, there isn't really any reason to oppose this.

So the new parties don't deserve any sort of legitimacy? Definitely not fair. People can have their stupid multiparty caucuses and they can also keep them off of ballots, the way any normal democracy functions. Or else why even limit caucuses? Why not five caucuses? Three caucuses certainly isn't enough.

I was mostly referring to the part about removing restrictions on caucus membership, since that was the most controversial part last time. Here's my solution, if people still have a problem with that: Allow caucuses to decide for themselves if they want to be multi-party or intra-party. Otherwise, I'm ambivalent about caucuses appearing on the ballot, with really no preference either way.

[Senator Napoleon]

The only point of this bill is to put multiparty caucuses on the ballot, wholly undermining the parties we already have for no good reason at all. Caucuses can have whoever they want as a member but they don't need to be recognized by the SoFE. It isn't as if we are restricting freedom of assembly by not passing this.

[Jayhawker]

Anyone who votes in favor of this bill is an idiot.

While at this point, I agree with you on this bill, calling your colleagues idiots is completely unnecessary in this chamber. There are much better ways you can get your point across.

[Senator Napoleon]

Anyone who votes in favor of this bill is an idiot.

While at this point, I agree with you on this bill, calling your colleagues idiots is completely unnecessary in this chamber. There are much better ways you can get your point across.

None of my colleagues have voted in favor of this bill!

But yeah I do take my comment back. Seriously, though, this does more bad than good. Even if I did support this I would want to wait and see how the new parties develop before I go around stirring up trouble with such disruptions.

[TJ in Wisco]

Now that the two parties have agreed to dissolve, there isn't really any reason to oppose this.

So the new parties don't deserve any sort of legitimacy? Definitely not fair. People can have their stupid multiparty caucuses and they can also keep them off of ballots, the way any normal democracy functions. Or else why even limit caucuses? Why not five caucuses? Three caucuses certainly isn't enough.

I am open to a different number of caucuses; that's not the main point of this bill, which, by the way was written long before the dissolution votes when it looked as if the RPP was not going to dissolve. I just fail to see why caucuses need to be limited to one party. Listing caucuses on the ballot at all is a little strange, but it's an interesting way to try to make them relevent, which otherwise would probably not happen.

Immediately following the passage of the first caucus bill, there was a rush to join caucuses and a widespread confusion from non-members of the RPP and JCP as to why they were not allowed to officially join them. My purpose in this amendment is to fix that issue so that anyone can join.

[Senator Napoleon]

I would prefer abolition of all caucuses to this change. Again, WHY do they need to be on the ballot? We are going to have four sets of parties on the ballot now for each candidate? This is a joke.

[Jayhawker]

This is creating way too many complications.

Basically, more or less, a citizen can be a part of four organizations - 1 party and 3 caucus. Am I correct in that? We might as well let citizen's join as many parties as they want. Sure would help in securing zombie voters.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Yeah, at this point, it's a little unnecessary to pass this.

[Marokai]

I support multiparty caucuses, but I'm willing to let them go for a little while because the party situation right now is quite hectic and deserves to shake out on it's own for awhile. And even if we did let multiparty caucuses into law, there's no way I would support allowing people be a member of multiple multiparty caucuses.

I will not at all, however, support the abolition of caucuses. They have worked quite well so far and deserve to continue forward as part of Atlasia in the future. This mad dash Napoleon keeps trying to make to shutting down, limiting, or amending out of existence, any of the reforms this Senate passes, is baffling.

[Senator Napoleon]

Please point to where I said I wanted to get rid of the current caucus system.

I happen to be the only member of my party in a caucus!

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Puts on Senate Dean Cap -
I would strongly encourage Senators not to engage in denegrating each other with personal insults.

Thank You!

Sen. NC Yankee,
Senate Dean

I am firmly opposed to caucuses appearing on ballots.

I am partial to allowing people to have membership in more then one caucus and have no problem if there is multiple parties within a single caucus.

[bgwah]

I've introduced an amendment to this bill that would allow us to suspend it. I definitely don't think it's necessary now.

[Marokai]

This is ridiculous. Caucuses have no negative side effects, and there is absolutely no harm in letting them continue as a permanent fixture of the game. I don't understand where this desire comes from to immediately try and wipe away things we just worked our asses off to pass for literally no reason.

Forgive me for getting a little pissed off at the thought of months and months of campaigning and screaming at people and writing legislation and compromising with people getting tossed aside just because some people think that just because we dissolved the big parties we're now perfectly solved and can just go back to the way things were. That is insane.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I guess if no one else is going to:

Section 2, Clause 1 is stricken from the text.

[bgwah]

This is ridiculous. Caucuses have no negative side effects, and there is absolutely no harm in letting them continue as a permanent fixture of the game. I don't understand where this desire comes from to immediately try and wipe away things we just worked our asses off to pass for literally no reason.

Forgive me for getting a little pissed off at the thought of months and months of campaigning and screaming at people and writing legislation and compromising with people getting tossed aside just because some people think that just because we dissolved the big parties we're now perfectly solved and can just go back to the way things were. That is insane.

and I still think it's silly to have two sets of parties on the ballot....

[Marokai]

I guess if no one else is going to:

Section 2, Clause 1 is stricken from the text.

I object.

We are now voting on this amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

(and I strongly encourage people to vote nay, to protect the point of this entire system in the first place)


Nay.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Nay.

[MOPolitico]

Nay

[Senator Napoleon]

Aye

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I challenge the notion that the only way to play it is to have caucuses be placed on the ballots.


And I object to you sitting on my amendment for six days.