SENATE BILL: Amendment to the Caucus Infrastructure and Formation Act (OTPD)

[bgwah]

Giving this a forum affairs/emergency slot. Now that the bill is in action, a few minor possible problems have surfaced that need to be clarified.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: bgwah

[Yelnoc]

I realize I am not a senator, but is it ok if I post language amendments in this thread, and then one of you can officially sponsor them?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I realize I am not a senator, but is it ok if I post language amendments in this thread, and then one of you can officially sponsor them?

I'd be happy to introduce them on your behalf if you like.

[Yelnoc]

My footnotes are italicized.  They need to be removed before this can be voted on.  I have taken the liberty of restructuring the entire bill; hopefully this form is more clear.  I did type this up rather hastily though; I'm sure it could use some proof reading.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

Making caucuses intra-party was sort of a major compromise that managed to get the last bill passed. I'm opposed to changing that so quickly.

What you call "non-partisan caucuses" basically sound like parties to me... In which case why bother with caucuses at all?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What you call "non-partisan caucuses" basically sound like parties to me... In which case why bother with caucuses at all?

This is bulls**t.

Don't tell me you never heard of politically-oriented organizations that aren't political parties.

Parties are parties. Caucuses are mostly about single or few issues. What the hell is the problem?

[bgwah]

What you call "non-partisan caucuses" basically sound like parties to me... In which case why bother with caucuses at all?

This is bulls**t.

Don't tell me you never heard of politically-oriented organizations that aren't political parties.

Parties are parties. Caucuses are mostly about single or few issues. What the hell is the problem?

...The problem is that people want them to be registered, appear on a ballot, and be governed exactly like a party. That's what parties are for.

[Yelnoc]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

[Napoleon]

What you call "non-partisan caucuses" basically sound like parties to me... In which case why bother with caucuses at all?

This is bulls**t.

Don't tell me you never heard of politically-oriented organizations that aren't political parties.

Parties are parties. Caucuses are mostly about single or few issues. What the hell is the problem?

...The problem is that people want them to be registered, appear on a ballot, and be governed exactly like a party. That's what parties are for.

Amen.

[Napoleon]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I won't vote for an amendment to the caucus bill that doesn't allow for caucuses to become non-partisan institutions if they so desire. It is a pointless and confusing restriction. Allow for both.

[Napoleon]

I won't vote for an amendment to the caucus bill that doesn't allow for caucuses to become non-partisan institutions if they so desire. It is a pointless and confusing restriction. Allow for both.

Your persistence makes me want to reconsider retirement.

[Yelnoc]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

[bgwah]

I won't vote for an amendment to the caucus bill that doesn't allow for caucuses to become non-partisan institutions if they so desire. It is a pointless and confusing restriction. Allow for both.

The caucus bill literally became law yesterday. You agreed to accept the intra-party idea before. I don't think it makes sense to have this debate again. If the current way really ends up not working out, I'll reconsider. But it should be given more than a single day trial period!

[Napoleon]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

Whichever would be.... ?

[Yelnoc]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

Whichever would be.... ?

...showing the general public that the candidate is a member of Caucus x, maybe?

[bgwah]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

The OAII is a different kind of a caucus. And it has existed for quite a while, long before the caucus bill. It doesn't need to be registered, and it will be not be killed by this amendment. It will continue to exist as it has.

It may have been a mistake not to come up with some different word to describe the intra-party caucuses...

[Napoleon]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

Whichever would be.... ?

...showing the general public that the candidate is a member of Caucus x, maybe?

But why? (No, not trying to troll you)

[bgwah]

The only thing I added was the non-partisan caucuses, which your bill did not prohibit.  One has already been "officially" registered; the OAII.  It would be a shame to kill us.  And no, they are not parties because they allow people to unite across party lines.  I go back to the OAII.  It allows southerners, whether they be of the PP, JCP, others, or independents to coordinate, without requiring them to come under a party banner.  I don't understand why that needed compromising.  But I'm not a senator here; if someone wants to sponsor the bill without the relevant sections, there is nothing I can do about it (though a little credit as to who wrote it would be nice ).

What use does listing the OAII on the ballot serve?

The same use that listing an intra-party caucus serves.

Whichever would be.... ?

...showing the general public that the candidate is a member of Caucus x, maybe?

If you haven't already, I would recommend reading through the previous thread. We've gone through a lot of this already.

[Yelnoc]

But why? (No, not trying to troll you)

Well, why would intra-party caucuses be allowed on the ballot, but non-party caucuses be forbidden?  It's equality under the law that we are talking about, here.

The OAII is a different kind of a caucus. And it has existed for quite a while, long before the caucus bill. It doesn't need to be registered, and it will be not be killed by this amendment. It will continue to exist as it has.

It may have been a mistake not to come up with some different word to describe the intra-party caucuses...

Perhaps.  But I do not understand why people oppose it being registered.  And it's not just OAII I am advocating for.  What about a reform caucus?  There are people in both the JCP, the RPP, and others who would join such a caucus in large numbers.  However the party could never succeed because, leaving party dynamics aside, "reform" as the only plank will not hold a party together.  I am sure I could come up with other examples of organizations taht would do better as inter-party caucuses then full-fledged parties.

But yes, I'll find the old thread and glance through it.

[bgwah]

A couple major points were to create internal divisions among the duopoly and to create natural successor parties for their eventual dissolution.

And it seems to be working out that way thus far. The JCP will probably end up with SD/Labor and Liberal Caucuses. There's also my green ELC, though nobody else has joined it yet (). And the RPP has the more right-wing Right-to-Life caucus, as well as the more moderate/centrist reform-oriented NPL.

[Napoleon]

A couple major points were to create internal divisions among the duopoly and to create natural successor parties for their eventual dissolution.

And it seems to be working out that way thus far. The JCP will probably end up with SD/Labor and Liberal Caucuses. There's also my green ELC, though nobody else has joined it yet (). And the RPP has the more right-wing Right-to-Life caucus, as well as the more moderate/centrist reform-oriented NPL.

Just join the Liberal Caucus. You know you want to.

We are the environmental caucus too!

[Yelnoc]

Try this on for size.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

...Does that mean I've (mostly) converted you to my side of the argument?

[Yelnoc]

...Does that mean I've (mostly) converted you to my side of the argument?

No.

But I'm not a senator and if I keep arguing nothing will get done and I will have to take Homely (or you, or somebody else) to court so that we can have the current law'd bill clarified.  If there is any senator who supporters my initial amendment, I would appreciate if you offered it as an amendment.  Regardless, you (bgwah) might as well introduce my political correct bill, assuming it doesn't have any flaws.

Anyway, I'm out for now.  I'll check back in though to see if the final bill has language problems