Labor Party Spring 2014 Convention - New Orleans, LA

[Dr. Cynic]

I'll wait for you to lay out your game reform proposal. If it would largely overlap my ideas, then it would be a waste to say things twice.

The holiday wil delay me in posting my ideas, and in any rate I'd love to see what you have in mind, so feel free to post what you propose as well.

My internet is spotty at the moment, so I'll try to sum up quickly while I still have a free hour on xfinity...

In order to really reform this game, we need either a new constitutional convention to clean up some of the messy bits or we need a more radical alternative, one I've been endorsing... That is a complete restart. It would mean all laws, offices, etc. would be vacated and we would essentially be creating a new Atlasia, in whatever form that would take. Ideally, I'd like to see a parliamentary government. I don't know if it would be official party policy to go that drastic (in spite of what I think) but at the very least, we need a ConCon endorsement in the platform.

[Adam Griffin]

I personally support a "two out of three" approach, in that we move toward consolidation as a short-term solution (with hopefully some elements of bicameralism), then either pursue a ConCon or reboot to take care of the statute-related stuff (while carrying over a 3-region plan and/or bicameral system). The ConCon thread has a decent number of signatures, but they're not distributed geographically as evenly as we'd like.

[President Tyrion]

Chair:

[X] Adam Griffin
[  ] Write-in:

Vice-Chair:

[X] TNF
[  ] Write-in:

General Secretary:

[X] Barnes
[  ] Write-in:

Attorney-At-Law:

[X] Write-in: Bacon King

[Barnes]

I personally support a "two out of three" approach, in that we move toward consolidation as a short-term solution (with hopefully some elements of bicameralism), then either pursue a ConCon or reboot to take care of the statute-related stuff (while carrying over a 3-region plan and/or bicameral system). The ConCon thread has a decent number of signatures, but they're not distributed geographically as evenly as we'd like.

This is really the path that I would like to see taken going forward.  By achieving success in the short-term with some reforms, we can help to grow a consensus for a more comprehensive change.

And Cynic, I share your desire to see a parliamentary system, though I don't think including it as official party policy would be the way to go.

[Napoleon]

I'm not sure I understand the issue people have with tactical voting...its a strategy game...all voting is tactical.

[Dr. Cynic]

I personally support a "two out of three" approach, in that we move toward consolidation as a short-term solution (with hopefully some elements of bicameralism), then either pursue a ConCon or reboot to take care of the statute-related stuff (while carrying over a 3-region plan and/or bicameral system). The ConCon thread has a decent number of signatures, but they're not distributed geographically as evenly as we'd like.

This is really the path that I would like to see taken going forward.  By achieving success in the short-term with some reforms, we can help to grow a consensus for a more comprehensive change.

And Cynic, I share your desire to see a parliamentary system, though I don't think including it as official party policy would be the way to go.

Don't mistake me there, I never said that the adoption of a parliamentary system should become party policy. I merely stated that was my own preference. What I do wish to have happen is for Labor policy to advocate having the debate and if necessary a referendum campaign on it.

At the very least though, we need a new ConCon to fix the issues we're facing.

[Barnes]

I personally support a "two out of three" approach, in that we move toward consolidation as a short-term solution (with hopefully some elements of bicameralism), then either pursue a ConCon or reboot to take care of the statute-related stuff (while carrying over a 3-region plan and/or bicameral system). The ConCon thread has a decent number of signatures, but they're not distributed geographically as evenly as we'd like.

This is really the path that I would like to see taken going forward.  By achieving success in the short-term with some reforms, we can help to grow a consensus for a more comprehensive change.

And Cynic, I share your desire to see a parliamentary system, though I don't think including it as official party policy would be the way to go.

Don't mistake me there, I never said that the adoption of a parliamentary system should become party policy. I merely stated that was my own preference. What I do wish to have happen is for Labor policy to advocate having the debate and if necessary a referendum campaign on it.

At the very least though, we need a new ConCon to fix the issues we're facing.

Oh no, I didn't misunderstand you, I was just restating my own belief as well.  We have to make our policy one that is committed to reform and to being productive collaborators with the other parties and persons involved.

[windjammer]

Just to say I'm writing something for the foreign platform.
Sorry for being so long!

[TNF]

Chair: Adam Griffin
VC: TNF
G-S: Barnes
A-A-L: Bacon King

I'm back, and I'm ready to continue debate on the platform. I have some ideas on game reform, which I'll try and post either tonight after work or tomorrow morning. It's good to be back, comrades.

[SWE]

Chair: Adam Griffin
VC: TNF
G-S: Barnes
A-A-L: Bacon King

[TNF]

Some thoughts on the platform...

Game reform: I would like to see us move to a parliamentary style game that embraces semi-presidentialism. I think we should establish a Prime Minister position and a Leader of the Opposition, with full partisan control of the legislature. I'm not entirely fond of the idea of bicameralism; I would simply prefer to increase the number of Senators elected at-large and change that system to one that is elected by party-list PR, if at all possible.

Nationalization: Perhaps rather than calling for state ownership, we could embrace "social ownership" of the means of production in a given industry? Basically instead of having the SoIA run the thing, we could make it decentralized; in the energy department, establish a socially owned energy authority owned and administered by a combination of those it serves, those who work for it, and the communities that rely upon it. Basically a kind of tripartite structure that is decentralized and promotes a degree of internal democracy.

[Oakvale]

I really can't imagine anything more boring than at-large party list voting in a game that's fundamentally about elections.

[Adam Griffin]

Now that I have more flexibility after the election, I'm going to say that I'm getting very tired of Labor members not participating in this discussion of the platform. When the work is put in by a select few and rejected, then counter-proposals need to be laid out for what is perceived as being too far or too wrong. This is the same issue we faced at the last convention. There are several of you who voted nay and have either negligibly weighed in or haven't weighed in at all.

[Dr. Cynic]

I can offer a general endorsement of TNF's Game Reform statement. I haven't fully decided if I support Party-list PR as my preferred method of election, but that's something I'd like to have debated when the time comes.

I'd be very excited if that works out the way it is hoped with a Government and Opposition frontbench. All we would need to decide would be how many backbenchers to accept, etc. Again, that's something I feel should be taken up as the time comes. I don't know if we should fully commit to anything apart from that, but up to that, I'm definitely behind it 100%.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't know if further debate of the nationalization question will achieve anything, unless anyone else has anything to say. At this point I think that the best solution would be to hold a vote on whether to include it in the final platform proposal. (Maybe using IRV if we want to select from several options? I like TNF"s counter-proposal better than what we currently have in the platform, but I'd prefer to remove the nationalization plank entirely.)

I like it as well and I'd vote for it.

[bore]

With regard to game reform, I think I've made it clear throughout my active time that I consider this the most important issue.

The important principle, for me, is we need to remember that atlasia is a game, and must be treated as a game. That means that we can support things we wouldn't in real life if it makes the game easier, like having the SoFE administering federal amendments and vice versa. In real life, I agree that the personality driven approach of the US is a bad idea, it would be far better to have a parliamentary system. In the game though, I would rather have an active intelligent right winger like shua in the senate than an inactive left wing hack. Not so in real life. So I think oakvale has a point, in an elections game we do have to be voting, to some extent on personality.

[moderate hero] With regard to nationalisation I favour the nationalisation of natural monopolies [/moderate hero]

[Gass3268]

Some thoughts on the platform...

Game reform: I would like to see us move to a parliamentary style game that embraces semi-presidentialism. I think we should establish a Prime Minister position and a Leader of the Opposition, with full partisan control of the legislature. I'm not entirely fond of the idea of bicameralism; I would simply prefer to increase the number of Senators elected at-large and change that system to one that is elected by party-list PR, if at all possible.

Nationalization: Perhaps rather than calling for state ownership, we could embrace "social ownership" of the means of production in a given industry? Basically instead of having the SoIA run the thing, we could make it decentralized; in the energy department, establish a socially owned energy authority owned and administered by a combination of those it serves, those who work for it, and the communities that rely upon it. Basically a kind of tripartite structure that is decentralized and promotes a degree of internal democracy.

I agree in essence to both of these points. One question, what is the difference between "those it serves" and "communities that rely upon it?"

[TNF]

Customers and the communities in which they are located, essentially.

[Gass3268]

Customers and the communities in which they are located, essentially.

Oh okay, makes sense!

[Adam Griffin]

Since TNF has worked so hard on the platform and understands how to break down the various opinions for a vote better than any of us most likely, I authorize him to hold line-item votes with multiple-choice on any and all platform sections with contention. Such votes shall last for 24 hours in accordance with the traditional platform vote.

x Adam Griffin

[TNF]

The section that seems to be most contested is the nationalization one. I'm prepared to open up a vote on that, but what other sections does the party wish to hold a vote on, before I proceed to it?

[Barnes]

Sorry for a lull in posting from me here. I concur with TNF that nationalization is obviously the most contentious issue here.

With regard to the game reform section, how do you want to settle the matter, TNF?

[TNF]

Sorry for a lull in posting from me here. I concur with TNF that nationalization is obviously the most contentious issue here.

With regard to the game reform section, how do you want to settle the matter, TNF?

I was planning on offering a few options, maybe something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Barnes]

Sorry for a lull in posting from me here. I concur with TNF that nationalization is obviously the most contentious issue here.

With regard to the game reform section, how do you want to settle the matter, TNF?

I was planning on offering a few options, maybe something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That will be perfectly acceptable.

Also, I'm on my phone so I can't check, but if we don't have some kind of executive summary at the beginning of the platform we should add one. (That could then be posted in the wiki and the intro to Atlasia thread). I think it's important that we summarize the platform for both our own edification and making the party appealing and accessible to prospective members.

I'd be willing to author or co-author such a statement, if other members approved.

[TNF]

A series of votes are now open on changes to the platform. You have 24 hours to cast your ballot. Upon tallying the votes, I will make the necessary changes and present the edited document for your approval.

Should the Labor Party platform include an executive summary of the contents inside prior to the body of the document?
Select only one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

Do you support the Industry section of the platform as is currently written?
Select only one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Select all that apply.
[  ] Removal of the plank calling for nationalization of power and fuel companies.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the plank calling for nationalization of power and fuel companies. (This essentially means that you support the idea of power and fuel company nationalization, you just want to see the plank re-written in the interests of coming to a consensus within the party as to what that means, exactly)
[  ] Removal of the plank calling for nationalization of transportation.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the plank calling for nationalization of transportation.
[  ] Removal of the plank calling for nationalization of iron and steel.
[  ] Clarification of the plank calling for nationalization of iron and steel.
[  ] Removal of the plank calling for federal chartering of corporations.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the plank calling for federal chartering of corporations.
[  ] Removal of the 'Policy for Exports' plank.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the 'Policy for Exports' plank.
[  ] Removal of the 'Production for use' plank.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the 'Production for use' plank.
[  ] Removal of the 'Modernize collective bargaining' plank.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the 'Modernize collective bargaining' plank.
[  ] Removal of the 'Industrial democracy' plank.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the 'Industrial democracy' plank.
[  ] Removal of the 'Promote cooperative industry' plank.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the 'Promote cooperative industry' plank.
[  ] Removal of the 'Streamline the state' plank.
[  ] Clarification or modification of the 'Streamline the state' plank.

Do you support the Agriculture section of the platform as is currently written?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Type all suggestions below.

Do you support the Housing section of the platform as is currently written?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Type all suggestions below.

Do you support the Education and Leisure section of the platform as is currently written?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Type all suggestions below.

Do you support the Health and Children section of the platform as is currently written?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Type all suggestions below.

Do you support the Social Insurance section of the platform as is currently written?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Type all suggestions below.

Do you support the Peace section of the platform as is currently written?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'no', what changes would you like to see made?
Type all suggestions below.

Do you support the addition of a section to the platform concerning Game Reform?
Select one option.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If you answered 'yes', what would you like it to call for?
Select all that apply.
[  ] Bicameral federal legislature.
[  ] Open party-list proportional representation.
[  ] Closed party-list proportional representation.
[  ] Mixed member proportional representation.
[  ] FPTP
[  ] Referendums at the federal level.
[  ] Single thread, SoFE administered referendums for the approval of all constitutional amendments.
[  ] Selection of a percentage of officeholders by lot rather than election.
[  ] Write-in: _______________________________________________