Partisanship Requirement Amendment (At Final Vote)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If we want to increase party membership and drive people away from registering as independents, then the Senate needs to give actual benefits to being in a political party.  Requiring people to join a political party is kinda silly when there's no real benefit to joining a political party.  (And why can't the "independents" then switch from a small-I to a capital-I and save the hassle?)

[Brandon H]

We could always require the parties to do something so then they actually have teeth. The Constitution already says that the Senate may decide what benefits an organized party may have - perhaps we could extend that to become "benefits and requirements", such as forcing some sort of party structure and activities?

Tried that. It failed, mainly because the definition of a party is already in the Constitution. Look at the Requirements for a Political Party bill I sponsored a year or so ago.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=56207.0

[CultureKing]

For some reason this bill makes me want to denounce Meeker as a communist...



This is all a ruse to slowly get Atlasia to a one-party communist dictatorship! Don't eat the tainted cookies!

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Although this legislation reminds me of Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts to democratize the Soviet Union, one prime example of  Gorbachev's attempts to do just that was the March 1989 Russian Parliamentary Elections, which allowed only Communists and non affiliated Independents to run for the Duma. Despite my mind comparing this with Gorbachev's attempts democratize the Soviet Union, I support this legislation.

Atlasia, as we know, has become boring and bland significantly over the past and I believe such reform would revitalise the game, known to us all as Atlasia. Although I know some in the Senate have some doubts about it, I know I'm supporting it, even if the proposed legislation does go down in flames.

[Torie]

Maybe it could be tried with a sunset clause. 

[Meeker]

I'm itching to say a few things here, but my job and travels have been limiting me. I'm not ignoring you is basically what I'm trying to say.

[minionofmidas]

[Colin]

Seeing that there has been no debate on this amendment in the last 24 hours I am bringing this to a vote.

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on the amendment.

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[Meeker]

While I would've like to have given much more time to this, I'll just conclude by stressing that the only aim of this is to improve the game. A vicious party structure, and the hopeful return of a strong conservative party, will get things back on track. It is fundamentally an elections game, and this will make the elections more interesting.

There have been a lot of legitimate concerns raised about logistical details of this amendment, which are all warranted. However, I urge Senators to consider that we can clarify this through simple legislation in the future. This is not the end of this process, this is simply the first step.

So uh, please vote for this. It's a change, but I think it's time for one.


Aye

[Colin]

While I would've like to have given much more time to this

Then you should have kept talking. As long as you keep posting I can't close debate, unless someone calls for cloture and all that entails.


I'm going to vote Abstain on the amendment. While I like what it does I think a better solution to creating more cohesive parties is to change the current wording of the Organized Parties clause of the Constitution and then implement something along the lines of BrandonH's party requirement bill.

[Meeker]

While I would've like to have given much more time to this

Then you should have kept talking. As long as you keep posting I can't close debate, unless someone calls for cloture and all that entails.

I considered that, but I decided that if I couldn't find the time to write thoughtful debate I'd just let it pass.

[Torie]

Nay, and I am going to try to filibuster this, until someone fills out the details as to how this all will actually work and enhance the experience. If someone does, I will switch my vote.

[Meeker]

Nay, and I am going to try to filibuster this, until someone fills out the details as to how this all will actually work and enhance the experience. If someone does, I will switch my vote.

You can't filibuster after we've started voting...

[Torie]

Damn! 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nay


This bill will most likely lead to decline in political parties.  Instead of having a few well-organzied parties and a slew of independents and joke parties.  The joke parties will simply grow to five members and do nothing.  If the amendment had provided for specific benefits to being a well-organzied party rather than saying the senate will do it later, I might have changed my vote.

[Hash]

I support the idea, but certainly not in its current form. I share most of DWTL's concerns.

[Verily]

Abstain. I agree with Colin, read what he wrote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I appreciate what proponents are trying to do here, but without giving people any solid reason to being registered to a party, this amendment is essentially just for show.

If it passes, I look forward to "Independent" to be one of Atlasia's largest political parties!

[CultureKing]

Nay.



There must be a better way to do this.

[Colin]

This Amendment has enough votes to fail. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[afleitch]

Nay ftr

[Colin]

Final Tally

Aye: 1 (Meeker)
Nay: 5 (Lewis Trondheim, Torie, DWTL, CultureKing, afleitch)
Abstain: 2 (Colin Wixted, Verily)
Not Voting: 0


With 1 in favour to 5 against, with 2 abstentions, this amendment hereby fails.

[Meeker]

Did Conor resign and I missed it?

[Хahar 🤔]

Did Conor resign and I missed it?

Yes, though that was after this post.