Party Name Change Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Party Name Change Bill

1. If the membership of a major political party, by vote of a quorum of all members of that party, decides that it wishes to change the name of that party, an officer of that party shall, within 14 days, notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact.

2. Once notified, the Secretary of Forum Affairs shall change the official party membership of all members registered within that party to the new name approved by the party membership.
Spon: Sen. MasterJedi

[DownWithTheLeft]

I like this, when the South Secessionist Party wanted to become the Regional Protection Party, we all had to re-registered which was kind of pointless.

[Purple State]

I like this, when the South Secessionist Party wanted to become the Regional Protection Party, we all had to re-registered which was kind of pointless.

Agreed. The SDP faced the same problem when they wanted to merge with the JCP.

MJ, I propose, as friendly, an amendment adding the words "or merge with another party" after the clause "decides that it wishes to change the name of that party."

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do not know if I agree with your second statement.  For example, what if a member of the SDP truly wanted to stay in the SDP and not join the JCP?  That is not a name change but an actual party affilation change to an already existant party.  I think people if they wish to join another party because there's disintegrated, they should have to do so themselves

[Hash]

I oppose the friendly amendment. I think DWTL has said why I do.

[Purple State]

I do not know if I agree with your second statement.  For example, what if a member of the SDP truly wanted to stay in the SDP and not join the JCP?  That is not a name change but an actual party affilation change to an already existant party.  I think people if they wish to join another party because there's disintegrated, they should have to do so themselves

If a majority of a party wishes to merge with another, they should not be hindered by a minority. Those who do not wish to merge may change their party affiliation on their own, but it is guaranteed to be fewer than the majority.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do not know if I agree with your second statement.  For example, what if a member of the SDP truly wanted to stay in the SDP and not join the JCP?  That is not a name change but an actual party affilation change to an already existant party.  I think people if they wish to join another party because there's disintegrated, they should have to do so themselves

If a majority of a party wishes to merge with another, they should not be hindered by a minority. Those who do not wish to merge may change their party affiliation on their own, but it is guaranteed to be fewer than the majority.

How many people are we honestly talking about though?  What were there, like 9 people in the SDP when it folded?  Why should someone involuntarily leave the party they have belonged to because others don't want to?

For example, I think they may have been before you were in Atlasia but, when the Republicans folded and joined the ACA for the most part, Inks and Jake refused to leave the party and the Republicans continued on a for awhile.  Why should Inks and Jake have been forced to leave when they in fact did not want to?

[Purple State]

I do not know if I agree with your second statement.  For example, what if a member of the SDP truly wanted to stay in the SDP and not join the JCP?  That is not a name change but an actual party affilation change to an already existant party.  I think people if they wish to join another party because there's disintegrated, they should have to do so themselves

If a majority of a party wishes to merge with another, they should not be hindered by a minority. Those who do not wish to merge may change their party affiliation on their own, but it is guaranteed to be fewer than the majority.

How many people are we honestly talking about though?  What were there, like 9 people in the SDP when it folded?  Why should someone involuntarily leave the party they have belonged to because others don't want to?

For example, I think they may have been before you were in Atlasia but, when the Republicans folded and joined the ACA for the most part, Inks and Jake refused to leave the party and the Republicans continued on a for awhile.  Why should Inks and Jake have been forced to leave when they in fact did not want to?

They may re-register with their own party if they do not wish to leave. But say 4 people want to do that while 6 want to merge, it is easier for the smaller number to do so than the larger.

[MasterJedi]

I agree with DWTL and Hash. And since it's already been opposed as friendly it doesn't really matter. But I'll be voting against the amendment.

[DownWithTheLeft]

But if that party dissolves, it may lose major party status, where it would keep that status if members were to stay.  

Consider this
I believe 5 people qualifies as major party status.  If a 10 person party vote to fold and join another party, all 10 people are forced to change.  5 wanted the change, 4 did not, and 1 is on a two week vacation.  Now, because that person is on a vacation but did not want to change, the party has lost major party status.  

Another perfect example is the NLC, it used to be huge and has shrunk signifigantly, but the few members it retains gives it major party status.  Should NLC members have to register as NLC because most of their members left?

[minionofmidas]

It's "organized political party", not "major party" (yes, I know it's a misnomer). I urge someone to introduce a friendly amendment to that effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incidentally, that's also the only thing I found in the Constitution to give the Senate the right to meddle with the Voter Roll at all - the ability to rename unbureaucratically can certainly be considered a "benefit of being an organized political party". So it's a good thing the bill only adresses such parties in the first place (which escaped me on first reading).


And now someone explain to me why I care about the doings of the Atlasian Senate again. I think I need my head checked...

[Brandon H]

It's "organized political party", not "major party" (yes, I know it's a misnomer). I urge someone to introduce a friendly amendment to that effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incidentally, that's also the only thing I found in the Constitution to give the Senate the right to meddle with the Voter Roll at all - the ability to rename unbureaucratically can certainly be considered a "benefit of being an organized political party". So it's a good thing the bill only adresses such parties in the first place (which escaped me on first reading).

And I tried to get that removed from the Constitution and failed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's "organized political party", not "major party" (yes, I know it's a misnomer). I urge someone to introduce a friendly amendment to that effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Incidentally, that's also the only thing I found in the Constitution to give the Senate the right to meddle with the Voter Roll at all - the ability to rename unbureaucratically can certainly be considered a "benefit of being an organized political party". So it's a good thing the bill only adresses such parties in the first place (which escaped me on first reading).

     Ah, I was unaware that that was the word for it. In that case, I also would like someone to introduce an amendment as friendly to change it.

[MasterJedi]

I bring it up, and since it's "my" bill it's in.

[Purple State]

I'm fine removing my amendment from the floor. I am not that attached to it to put up a fight for it.

[tmthforu94]

I support this, simply because it will save a lot of time and work. Having to get everyone in your party to switch over had proven to be a daunting task.

[Hash]

I propose an amendment to change major political party to organized political party.

[minionofmidas]

I propose an amendment to change major political party to organized political party.

You're too late. The Jedi got it in before you.

[Bacon King]

Why does the Senate want to interfere with the private affairs of independent organizations?

[Purple State]

Why does the Senate want to interfere with the private affairs of independent organizations?

This is actually removing a barrier to independent organizations. We want to make the structure of government less intrusive and restricting.

[MasterJedi]

Why does the Senate want to interfere with the private affairs of independent organizations?

We aren't, we're making it easier for Parties if they so choose to change their names like PS said.

[Bacon King]

Shouldn't this be something the party organization should handle itself, within its own rules/procedures?

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this amendment below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nay

[Hash]

Nay

[MasterJedi]

Shouldn't this be something the party organization should handle itself, within its own rules/procedures?

Well yes, the party itself does decide it wants to change it's name. But this makes it so that everyone in the party doesn't have to re-register under than new name and in a new party for it to take affect. There really should be no reason to oppose this, all it does is make a transition easier if a party wants it.