Coalition to Protect Preferential Voting

[MarkDel]

Don,

OK, but please explain to me the VAGUE language in your platform in respect to...

The Death Penalty
Immigration
AND YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION IRAQ let alone state a position. Instead you give some vague, quasi-supportive statement about endorsing the War on Terror.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Capital Punishment – The UAC only supports the death penalty in extreme cases that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What's vague about it?  We support the death penalty in principle.  There was some controversy about it - all but one of the members who voted on it supported DP in principle but the effort that Nation and I spearheaded to support a moratorium failed by a few votes.

Foreign workers are an essential part of our economy, and we support their efforts to improve their lives by entering this country and finding good honest work.

Do we have to spell out that we support H1B Visa's?

No, we don't mention Iraq.  There is disagreement within the Party as to the best solution.  I think its safe to say that all of our members understand that the world is a safer place with Saddam out of power.

[MarkDel]

Don,

Here's what you left out on your Immigration Policy..."We encourage tougher screening of people entering this country in order to provide security to all Americans. However, this should not hinder the efforts of peaceful people to enter this country."

What in the world does that mean? Peaceful people? Entering how? Legally? Illegally? Both? Are you going to have a tough immigration policy or not?

As for the Death Penalty, the last line is some sort of vague attempt to say that you would only execute people who were REALLY guilty!!! The legal standard for guilt or innocence for all criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" so mentioning it when you say you support the Death Penalty implies some sort of ambivalence about its application. Either you support it or not, but your statement sounds like guilt ridden support.

And as for Iraq, well...you explained that one in an honest fashion, but it would make a helluva lot more sense to take a real position.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Mark,

It means that we don't believe that the solution to our problems is building walls or turning our borders into bloodbaths.

And yes, we do have "guilt-ridden" support for the death penalty.  We support it for those who are guilty of their crimes.  We are guilty for the innocents who have been found on death row.

Don,

Here's what you left out on your Immigration Policy..."We encourage tougher screening of people entering this country in order to provide security to all Americans. However, this should not hinder the efforts of peaceful people to enter this country."

What in the world does that mean? Peaceful people? Entering how? Legally? Illegally? Both? Are you going to have a tough immigration policy or not?

As for the Death Penalty, the last line is some sort of vague attempt to say that you would only execute people who were REALLY guilty!!! The legal standard for guilt or innocence for all criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" so mentioning it when you say you support the Death Penalty implies some sort of ambivalence about its application. Either you support it or not, but your statement sounds like guilt ridden support.

And as for Iraq, well...you explained that one in an honest fashion, but it would make a helluva lot more sense to take a real position.

[MarkDel]

Don,

Yes, but that sort of editorializing weakens a Platform. Either you are for the Death Penalty or not...the legal standard of guilt and innocence is very, very clear and does not need to be restated for it makes it look like you are not taking a position.

And I don't want to turn our borders into bloodbaths either, but your Platform doesn't really tell me what your actual policy is. It sounds all warm and fuzzy while being tough at the same time, but how would it function in practice?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I believe specificity is something voters are entitled to even if both current parties don't seem to think so.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The AFRNC platform as published on its web site does not even address Immigration policy.  How do we know that their policy is?

Don,

Yes, but that sort of editorializing weakens a Platform. Either you are for the Death Penalty or not...the legal standard of guilt and innocence is very, very clear and does not need to be restated for it makes it look like you are not taking a position.

And I don't want to turn our borders into bloodbaths either, but your Platform doesn't really tell me what your actual policy is. It sounds all warm and fuzzy while being tough at the same time, but how would it function in practice?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I believe specificity is something voters are entitled to even if both current parties don't seem to think so.

[The Duke]

Mark,

I know some of the platform is vague.  The reason is that our members have a hard time agreeing on positions on specific issues.

Sometimes our members cut one way, sometimes the other way.  Me for example, I'm a little bit for big government, but not so socially liberal.  Someone else is socially liberal but economically conservative (Andrew, KEmperor).

We are all centrist, even though we don't always agree on specific issues.  It is inherently difficult to write a platform for people who are all centrist, but not always in agreement.

[The Duke]

Oh, and let there be no doubt, the major players in the UAC were almost exclusively for the war in Iraq.  President Gustaf, out highest rankiing elected official was for it, and our next highest ranking official, Senator PPT Kennedy was for it.  I am the Secretary of Defense, the most prominent foreign policy person in the Party, and I was for it.  We aren't very wishy washy for the most part.

[MarkDel]

The AFRNC platform as published on its web site does not even address Immigration policy.  How do we know that their policy is?

Don,

Yes, but that sort of editorializing weakens a Platform. Either you are for the Death Penalty or not...the legal standard of guilt and innocence is very, very clear and does not need to be restated for it makes it look like you are not taking a position.

And I don't want to turn our borders into bloodbaths either, but your Platform doesn't really tell me what your actual policy is. It sounds all warm and fuzzy while being tough at the same time, but how would it function in practice?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I believe specificity is something voters are entitled to even if both current parties don't seem to think so.

Don,

Good point. I'd like to help them clean their Platform up a little if someone in their party asked me.

[MarkDel]

Mark,

I know some of the platform is vague.  The reason is that our members have a hard time agreeing on positions on specific issues.

Sometimes our members cut one way, sometimes the other way.  Me for example, I'm a little bit for big government, but not so socially liberal.  Someone else is socially liberal but economically conservative (Andrew, KEmperor).

We are all centrist, even though we don't always agree on specific issues.  It is inherently difficult to write a platform for people who are all centrist, but not always in agreement.

John,

I certainly understand the inherent difficulty of putting together a "coalition" party as opposed to an ideological one, but you guys would have been better off compromising on some positions rather than trying to state both sides in an effort to make everyone happy. It creates the impression of uncertainty, and I always found that troubling.

[MarkDel]

Oh, and let there be no doubt, the major players in the UAC were almost exclusively for the war in Iraq.  President Gustaf, out highest rankiing elected official was for it, and our next highest ranking official, Senator PPT Kennedy was for it.  I am the Secretary of Defense, the most prominent foreign policy person in the Party, and I was for it.  We aren't very wishy washy for the most part.

So who was the lone dissenter who made you guys plead the Fifth?

[MarkDel]

The AFRNC platform as published on its web site does not even address Immigration policy.  How do we know that their policy is?

Don,

By the way, I should point out that I probably agree with UAC on just as many issues as I do the Republicans, in fact I disagree with them big-time on a number of issues, but their unambivalent statements are refreshing and their support of the Bush Doctrine was the clincher for me.

[The Duke]

Mark, I think it was Nation who was against the war.

[Platypus]

I hope I'm not burning any bridges with the honorable Senator StatesRights, but I must part his company on this particular issue.

I plan to fight to protect preferential voting.  It was my bill in the senate that established preferential voting and I stand by the contents of that bill.  It would be easy for me to say that because some elections have not favored my party's candidates that we should return to the old way of doing things.  In this instance, however, I must side with the interests of democracy over the interests of my party.  Our system of preferential voting and instant runoffs insures that the candidate who wins an election is the one who is preferred over all the other candidates in the field.  The instant runoffs allow us to avoid the long and chaotic process of holding runoff elections every time two candidates tie.

Like I said, I stand by the contents of my bill and I can assure everyone on the forum that preferential voting is in no way a UAC scheme (I don't even think the UAC existed at the time I introduced the bill in the senate) nor is it the baby of United Lefties.  It is, quite to the contrary, my baby--the greatest legislative achievement of a very conservative republican.

What we republicans should be concentrating on in the aftermath of this election is how extremely, surprisingly well our candidate did.  Our voter turnout efforts produced a lead in first preference votes.  Six people voted republican in this election.  This from a party that managed to net ten votes in the last presidential election only a month ago.  We are flourishing and, if democracy is allowed to work without impediments, we will continue to flourish.

I guess that's all I have to say for now.

It was actually my baby and I was trying to get support since before the constitution was created, but I'm glad or your support and creation of the bill

I am more then willing to oin the cause. This is the truest form of democracy we can have. It is an amazing thing to have in our forum, and it must be protected.

[Gustaf]

I join the coalition as well.

MarkDel, you should get MSN and we could talk a little about those issues. I would say that the UAC is a lot more united than the real life Republican or Democratic parties.

Also, most of those who weren't that centrist, people like Ilikeverin or GWBFan who joined for different reasons, have left the party since then. We have been a little purified. But no one argues with the fact that I'm a Democrat and Bullmoose a Republican, despite the fact that I'm probably to his right... This is b/c you can have variuous reasons for joining a party, not just issues in themselves.

[JohnFKennedy]

Just to satisfy your request for a list of UAC Members Mark,

Hobbes   UAC   CA
John D Ford   UAC   CA
John F Kennedy   UAC   CA
TheKing2004   UAC   CA
WildCard   UAC   CA
Beet   UAC   MD
Beaver   UAC   MI
Gustaf   UAC   MN
Justin   UAC   NH
MAS117   UAC   NJ
WMS   UAC   NM
.Andrew   UAC   NY
Huckleberry Finn   UAC   NY
Kemperor   UAC   NY
Nation   UAC   NY
Bergie72   UAC   PA
BullMoose88   UAC   PA
Htmldon   UAC   TN
M at Brandeis   UAC   TX
Ben   UAC   VA


There we go, the only one who is really far from the "centrist" tag we give ourselves is Justin.

[Akno21]

I'll join the coalition.

[KEmperor]

Don,

And I don't want to turn our borders into bloodbaths either, but your Platform doesn't really tell me what your actual policy is. It sounds all warm and fuzzy while being tough at the same time, but how would it function in practice?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I believe specificity is something voters are entitled to even if both current parties don't seem to think so.

Ok, as the person who was there while we argued this out for A LONG TIME, and ultimately wrote the compromise, I'll tell you exactly what our immigration policy is supposed to mean.  It means what while we support tougher measures to filter out terrorists and other criminals from entering the country, we also support making it easier for those who come here for simply economic reasons to get in.  We believe that immigration and migrant workers are a boon to our economy and should be encouraged.

[Fritz]

By the way, there is a complete list of all registered voters in the forum, sorted by party and sorted by state, in the Office of the Secretary of Forum Affairs.  And I just updated it with the most current information for you.

[JohnFKennedy]

By the way, there is a complete list of all registered voters in the forum, sorted by party and sorted by state, in the Office of the Secretary of Forum Affairs.  And I just updated it with the most current information for you.

You have a few mistakes on that list Fritz. For example, Bergie72 is listed there as being from New York, he is registered in Pennsylvania.

I believe you also haven't updated it recently unless you did so today.

[Fritz]

Thanks for the info on Bergie72.  If there are other mistakes you know of, you need to let me know (in that thread, preferably).  

And yes, I did mean I updated it today.  I'm not going to update it every time there's a minor change or a new person, but will when there seems to be an interest in having a current list (as I noticed today), or when the list has had a number of changes.

[minionofmidas]

I join the Coalition to Protect Preferential Voting.

[JohnFKennedy]

Thanks for the info on Bergie72.  If there are other mistakes you know of, you need to let me know (in that thread, preferably).  

And yes, I did mean I updated it today.  I'm not going to update it every time there's a minor change or a new person, but will when there seems to be an interest in having a current list (as I noticed today), or when the list has had a number of changes.

Ok, well, I hold a spreadsheet on my computer with all the information on it. I will compare it with your list at one point.

[ilikeverin]

I join the coalition, and urge all other ALSDAPIMP/IPA/AFIP members to do the same

[ilikeverin]

Also, most of those who weren't that centrist, people like Ilikeverin or GWBFan who joined for different reasons, have left the party since then.

I joined because I thought the party was right for me, but then the platform was a little too far to the right for me, except for marijuana, which was too far to the left.