Senate Bill: Political Party Organization Amendment (Rejected)

[DemPGH]

Political Party Organization Amendment

Article V, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution is hereby repealed and Article V of the Constitution is hereby amended to add the following section:
"Section 3: Political Parties
"1. Any political party of ten or more members shall be classified as an organized political party.
"2. A political party with fewer than ten members shall also be classified as an organized political party if it meets or exceeds a conditional threshold of membership and submits to the Registrar General documentation demonstrating its organization. The conditional threshold for major party status shall be set at three members unless otherwise defined by statute. Guidelines for the demonstration of party organization shall be set by the Registrar General.
"3. Should a political party with ten or more members fall below ten members but not below the conditional threshold for organized party status, it shall not be required to provide documentation in order to maintain its organized party status unless such documentation is specifically requested by the Registrar General."

With the defeat of the RDA, this is now up for consideration and has the full support of the administration.

Sponsor: Senator Gass3268

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can we get some advocacy here?

[MaxQue]

Nay

[Gass3268]

Just by looking at the new Registration Statistics list produced by homelycooking shows why this amendment is needed. There are way too many political parties that are not having a meaningful impact on the game that are also being recognized as an organized party. This amendment will allow the smaller parties that have an impact to be recognized. The amendment will also provide goals to the low-impact parties, set by the Register Genera, to achieve in order to gain organized status. Lastly this amendment will give the whole party recognition process more flexibility.         

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Minimum debate time expires tomorrow morning.

[DemPGH]

I agree with Gass' rationale here for at minimum some debate, but we already have one vote to the Negative, or so it appears, and no discussion. I know it's vacation time and all, but. . . I hate to call for a final vote because I would like to see some debate / engagement. Last call.

Edit: I'll give another 24 hours from the time this post was originally made.

[bore]

Whether the limit is set at 10 citizens or 3 citizens seems largely irrelevent to me- literally the only thing it changes is the columns in homely's thread each week. Basically, for the purpose of making his life easier I wouldn't mind changing the requirement to 10.

What could be an interesting discussion is actually changing what being a major political party means, because right now there is now difference between what (say) Reality or Nothing can do and what (say) Labor can do. So that, for example, only a major party is allowed automatic ballot access, and others have to apply for it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All it takes is providing documentation one time? That may solve our problems today, but in two years we'll be right back where we started.

[DemPGH]

Okay, let's go ahead and move this to a final vote - there are a couple of viewpoints on the table at least, and thanks, guys. I don't see that it changes things that much, and a small party being asked to present homely with some evidence of organizational structure doesn't seem especially burdensome to me, but that's me.

[TNF]

Nay.

[MaxQue]

Nay

[bore]

Nay

[Gass3268]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay.

I just don't see the point in making them submit a piece of paper that says they have "organization".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY


Mr. VP, vote change period time!

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[Хahar 🤔]

homelycooking has already said that he would be in favor of this amendment, but I suppose it's too hard for you people to actually spend some time on legislation instead of blindly voting.

[Napoleon]

homelycooking has already said that he would be in favor of this amendment, but I suppose it's too hard for you people to actually spend some time on legislation instead of blindly voting.

He said the same thing about abolishing iniatives.

[DemPGH]

We're 6-1 against on this with one abstention. We have 24 hours to change votes, and then this one can be put to bed as well.

[Хahar 🤔]

Would it be too difficult for anyone to say why they oppose this?

[TNF]

Changing my vote to Aye.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

The president's change will likely earn my support.

[Sbane]

Aye

[DemPGH]

This is rejected with 6 N, 3 Y, and 1 A.