Requirements for a Political Party Bill

[Ebowed]

Requirements for a Political Party Bill

Findings

There are 18 Political Parties (including Independent) and 71 citizens in Atlasia, which would average roughly 4 members per party. Many of the current parties have had minimal activity. This legislation shall attempt to make political parties act like a party.

Designations

A party shall have one of the following designations:

• 1. New - A party shall be designated as "New" upon the time that the first person registers as a member of that party. It shall keep this designation until it meets the requirements for an "Organized" Party or until 60 days or a Presidential Election pass in which it shall become a "Unorganized" Party.
• 2. Organized - A party shall be designated as "Organized" as long as it continues to meet the requirements stated in the Requirements section of this Act.
• 3. Unorganized - A "New" Party that fails to meet the requirements of an "Organized" Party after 60 days of its formation or by the following Presidential Election, whichever comes later, shall be designated as an "Unorganized" Party.
• 4. Disorganized - A party that was "Organized" but failed to meet to requirements to remain an "Organized" Party shall be designated as a "Disorganized" Party.
• 5. Comedic - A party may designate itself a "Comedic" or Joke party in which the party has no serious political agenda. (Examples include the Atlasian Monster Raving Loony Party, Birthday Party, and King's Joke Parties.)
• 6. Dissolved - If a party is Unorganized or Disorganized for an entire Presidential Election Cycle, it shall be "Dissolved" and its members shall be declared Independent.
• 7. Major and Minor - An Organized Political Party with at least two members up to 5% of the total population of Atlasia is a Minor Organized Political Party while one with greater than 5% is a Major Organized Political Party.

Requirements

In order to be an Organized Party, a party must have:

• 1. an ideological summary (such as Neo-Conservatism, Paleo-Libertarianism, Social Liberalism, Socialism, Hawkish Foreign Policy, Nationalism, Federalism).
• 2. produce a platform (as defined by Section 3 of the Miscellany Act).
• 3. a chairperson. (A party is free to have other officers as it so chooses.)
• 4. a convention between every Presidential Election.
• 5. more than one member.

Mergers

If two parties merge, than the new party shall have the designation of the party that was higher (New - Unorganized - Disorganized - Organized). It shall have 60 days to re-meet the Requirements.


Sponsor: Sen. Brandon H

[Ebowed]

The Jesus Christ Party's official ideological label is "Moderate."  Does this qualify for Section 3, Clause 1, or would our party need to be more specific?

[Rob]

5. Comedic - A party may designate itself a "Comedic" or Joke party in which the party has no serious political agenda.

I'd like a small clarification, please- this category does include the Ron Paul Party, yes?

[minionofmidas]

Why should a disorganized party be forcefully dissolved? That makes no sense to me.

[Ebowed]

Why should a disorganized party be forcefully dissolved? That makes no sense to me.

And I can't think of a recent political party convention that wasn't a complete waste of time.

Really, this bill seems totally unnecessary.

[Brandon H]

I'm glad all of these questions were asked when I was discussing this bill a few weeks ago.

The Jesus Christ Party's official ideological label is "Moderate."  Does this qualify for Section 3, Clause 1, or would our party need to be more specific?

I think something more specific would be better, though I suppose that would qualify. Ultimately I think it would be under the discretion of the SoFA.

5. Comedic - A party may designate itself a "Comedic" or Joke party in which the party has no serious political agenda.

I'd like a small clarification, please- this category does include the Ron Paul Party, yes?

The RRP already has more of a detailed political description in a week than the JCP has had in a few years. We also named the Party after Ron Paul because we share his beliefs. Frankly, based on the viewpoints of some members of the JCP, it seems it was named after Jesus Christ as an insult to Christians.

Why should a disorganized party be forcefully dissolved? That makes no sense to me.

To clear the rolls of parties that do nothing. When was the last time the CDP or ILP did anything? Even with 7 members, the SLA hasn't done much since Dr. Cynic left. I did what I could to keep the ACA active even with 3 or 4 members. What is the real difference between a party that does nothing and a bunch of independents?

And I can't think of a recent political party convention that wasn't a complete waste of time.

But it wasn't always that way. I remember when Candidates would debate at a convention trying to win the parties endorsements. Parties debated on platforms that actually meant something.
---
I feel political parties are a big part of Atlasia. If you don't, then go register as an independent. I see no reason for there to be almost 20 parties when most doing nothing, though I do see the humor in some (like the AMRLP).

[Ebowed]

I'm glad all of these questions were asked when I was discussing this bill a few weeks ago.

Well, are you suggesting we not debate the bill?

The RRP already has more of a detailed political description in a week than the JCP has had in a few years.

If the intent of this bill is to make Atlasia's oldest and second largest party "illegitimate" because it doesn't have a political description to your liking, why should I vote for it?  Why should anyone vote to limit the free speech rights of the political parties?

If you don't, then go register as an independent.

Quite snippy.  Just because the ACA kept having its utterly useless conventions right till its death doesn't mean that the whole game would be better off if every party were having three people vote on whether or not to endorse its own candidates for a senate race and a VP spot, or wherever they happen to have candidates on the ballots.  Yaaawn.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I like the purpose of the bill but still feel it is an infringment of free speech

[Colin]

Well I would first like to say that I support such a Bill and that it will codify the electoral system as it concerns the political parties and force such parties to become more structured and more active. In response to Porce I believe that political conventions can be great forums for candidates and that a strong political convention helps bring the political sphere alive. I remember several sukch conventions from my time here that were hard fought between several candidates and led to realignments within parties and within the political structure itself.

I also think that this would do away with one person parties and inactive parties while recognizing and rewarding those parites that have achieved a level of cohesion and activity.

As for Senator Porce's questions I would consider moderate sufficient for a political ideology qualification but I think it would hlep the SoFA and the voters to know a little more about each party. I don't think we should descriminate against parties that contain diverse viewpoints, though I would consider the JCP centre-leftist social democratic and social liberal in nature.

A feature that I believe would be nice, and that I have seen used in other political simulations and micronations, is a 50-word statement proposed by every party stating their intentions, beliefs, and their plan for government. Just a short statement to tell the voter's and prospective members of the party what they stand for.

[Brandon H]

I'm glad all of these questions were asked when I was discussing this bill a few weeks ago.

Well, are you suggesting we not debate the bill?

Not at all. But I discussed this earlier before introducing it to in order to address any problems with this bill.

The RRP already has more of a detailed political description in a week than the JCP has had in a few years.

If the intent of this bill is to make Atlasia's oldest and second largest party "illegitimate" because it doesn't have a political description to your liking, why should I vote for it?  Why should anyone vote to limit the free speech rights of the political parties?

This has nothing to do with free speech. We have requirements on voters such as a certain number of posts and the fact they must vote to remain on the rolls. If we can put requirements on voters than we can put requirements on political parties.

If you don't, then go register as an independent.

Quite snippy.  Just because the ACA kept having its utterly useless conventions right till its death doesn't mean that the whole game would be better off if every party were having three people vote on whether or not to endorse its own candidates for a senate race and a VP spot, or wherever they happen to have candidates on the ballots.  Yaaawn.

Two questions: In your opinion, what purpose to political parties serve? Why are you in a party?
---
Colin, thank you for your support of this bill. I thought about adding a requirement for a brief statement about the party, but Section 3 of the Miscellany Act already requires a party to have a 200 platform (which lately seemingly has been ignored). But if you still think a 50 word statement would improve this bill then I will support it.

[Colin]

I think a 50 word statement would be easier for people to create though I think a 200 word platform is doable as well.

[minionofmidas]

Two questions: In your opinion, what purpose to political parties serve? Why are you in a party?

I am in a disorganized party - or more commonly in recent times: I am a disorganized party - for my own amusement.

I would not take it kindly if denied this kind of amusement.

I have no problem with providing recognition to the fact that a party is or is not organized - it is strictly this one part of the bill that I am strenuously opposed to.

[Brandon H]

I have no problem with providing recognition to the fact that a party is or is not organized - it is strictly this one part of the bill that I am strenuously opposed to.

The original version actually did not include this. It was asked what incentive does a party have to try to maintain these requirements. This was the only realistic one I could think of. It isn't like we could do federal funding (not that I would support that). The only other one is creating some sort of ballot access laws and that would only make things worse.

I am open to suggestions.
---
I offer the following amendment:

Clause 2 of the Requirements Section is amended to
"a 50 word statement briefly explaining their political view points or a platform (as defined by Section 3 of the Miscellany Act)."

[Dr. Cynic]

Even with 7 members, the SLA hasn't done much since Dr. Cynic left.

That honestly makes me sad to hear. I've just been reading over some of the government's recent activities... I'm honestly dismayed to hear that the SLA, hasn't done anything since my retirement...

Sometimes I honestly want to come out of retirement and slap some people around... Some of the things like the Opebo Bill just really descend into redundancy.

What would every one of you think if I came back and re-energized the SLA? What if I came back to Atlasian politics?... Maybe I'll bring my show back?...

Well anyway, maybe this was just a nonsensical raving from a medicated former Senator, Vice President, and briefly President, who fought to preserve Atlasia. Take it for what you will... Because you never know what I might do... Maybe, instead of going to auditions, etc... I'll spend my free time trying to kickstart Atlasia's ass.

[Ebowed]

I motion to table this bill.

Article V, Section 1, Clause 8 states "Any political party of five or more members is considered to be an organized political party. The benefits of being an organized political party may be determined by the Senate by appropriate legislation."

This bill is therefore entirely unconstitutional, as well as being an infringement of free speech rights.  Also referencing Section 3 of the Miscellany Act is rather silly considering it's been repealed.

[Brandon H]

Designations, Clauses 6 and 7 are unconstitutional and I motion that it be removed.

Amend the previous amendment to
a 50 word statement briefly explaining their political view points or a platform of 200 words or more.

The benefits of being an organized political party may be determined by the Senate by appropriate legislation.

So we can determine the benefits and can put additional requirements on those benefits.

We shall repeal that Clause of the Constitution, especially since its author had not envisioned the party to voter ratio being near 4 and most not have platforms.

And I already addressed the free speech issue.

---

Dr. Cynic,
You were one of the better party chairmen around. (Of course even if you came back now, you would already be in the top 3.)

[Ebowed]

We are voting on this amendment:

Clause 2 of the Requirements Section is amended to
"a 50 word statement briefly explaining their political view points or a platform of 200 words or more."


Nay

[Colin]

Considering the Senate repealed the section of the Miscellany Act pertaining to a party platform I would like to vote Nay and hope that Brandon create include a platform definition in the bill itself.

[Ebowed]

Considering the Senate repealed the section of the Miscellany Act pertaining to a party platform I would like to vote Nay and hope that Brandon create include a platform definition in the bill itself.

Sorry, we had the wrong amendment.  The correct version does not address Section 3of the Miscellany Act.

[Colin]

Alright then:

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Nay.

[Brandon H]

Aye

(How did I let this one slip?)

[Јas]

Abstain

[Јas]

The amendment ties 2-2-1 after the expiration of the voting period.
I am unsure how this now proceeds and would ask for advice from my fellow Senators on how this now proceeds.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I offer no advice, but if it will help, I'll vote a belated Aye on the amendment.