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

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not even fully understanding what big amendment we're needing here that necessitates reproducing the entire text of the original Act, since, as Bgwah has so nicely reminded me, it just became law yesterday. We needed an amendment because mostly of one issue; the registration confusion (and I was motivated to also want to amend it because of the ensuing confusion on who could join what caucus).

It just seems silly to me like we're back here debating this as if half the Act was fatally flawed needs rewritten.

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!

I'm a little tired of being the nice guy that keeps agreeing to compromises that make no sense when some of you are being stubborn on anything I want to get passed. You forced a compromise on the ballot imitative Amendment that made it needlessly more difficult to get an initiative on the ballot. You forced a compromise on the caucus bill that has served to only confuse people and needlessly restrict membership. Napoleon, when he's not flinging out tabling motions like some sort of parliamentary gatling gun, is demanding stupid changes on election law in the Empowerment Amendment that barely matter (the amendment that you proposed a compromise that you won't even agree to yourself), but he treats it like a life and death change.

Even on non-reform bills, like the Post Office act, was apparently fine and not controversial enough to get any debate at all until the eleventh hour of the eleventh hour, when suddenly it got a ton of nays, all conveniently not on this side of the aisle.

So yeah, I'm being rather forward here and I'm developing an even shorter temper for this stuff. I'm sick and tired of every reform bill devolving into these ridiculous lines in the sand that my position always has to move to.

There has been numerous occasions already of people completely misunderstanding what this bill was about in trying to join a caucus of a party they can't actually join, and the more I try to think of a way to explain it to people, the more I realize that there really isn't any legitimate justification for why we have that restriction.

[Napoleon]

I don't get everything I want either Marokai. Most of my reform bills were shot down by your party, such as VP reform. I still think it is better to have a compromise to settle for than to have nothing at all. I do like to table sh**t.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't get everything I want either Marokai. Most of my reform bills were shot down by your party, such as VP reform. I still think it is better to have a compromise to settle for than to have nothing at all. I do like to table sh**t.

What VP reform haven't you gotten? Surely you're not referring to the Amendment that was ratified and is now law?

[Napoleon]

I don't get everything I want either Marokai. Most of my reform bills were shot down by your party, such as VP reform. I still think it is better to have a compromise to settle for than to have nothing at all. I do like to table sh**t.

What VP reform haven't you gotten? Surely you're not referring to the Amendment that was ratified and is now law?

It failed the first time.

[Yelnoc]

I'm not even fully understanding what big amendment we're needing here that necessitates reproducing the entire text of the original Act, since, as Bgwah has so nicely reminded me, it just became law yesterday.

The registration issue was the current controversy, but the sloppiness of the original necessitated a redraft.  You'll notice the Party dissolution section has been restructured to mandate that only members who choose to reregister with the party the caucus is joining go with the caucus, preventing dissenters from joining a party against their will.  I feel like there were other issues, but I have to run...

[Yelnoc]

I'm not a senator, so feel free to ignore me.  But do something.

[Oakvale]

I'm not a Senator, either, but what's the point of listing non-partisan caucuses on the ballot? Non-partisan caucuses are effectively the same thing as the largely defunct and useless "pressure groups" of all stripes that pop up now and then. I don't think pressure groups and such should be listed on the ballot like an actual political party.

I thought the whole point of the caucus bill was to create some political debate within the existing parties, no?

[TJ in Oregon]

The point of listing non-partisan caucuses on the ballot is that interest groups in real life have no analagous role in Atlasia. In real life, such groups run ads, make campaign donations, and distribute literature to the masses. I am aware caucuses don't do these things, but we're also not all in Congress either. The point is to have issue based advocacy groups drive our politics some instead of the two behemoth parties.

Having partisan caucuses isn't going to split the two main parties because people aren't foolish enough to think that they will be better off with loyalty to their caucus rather than their party. If anything it will grow them. People who are currently independents are given an incentive to join the two large parties rather than the other way around. Look at the voter roles since we've passed the caucus bill, not a single voter has left either major party and one has joined.

[bgwah]

I've thought about Yelnoc's amendment and uh, made some minor adjustments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

Alright, I'm formally proposing my above amendment then. 24 hours to object.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed... Last chance to point out any spelling errors or loopholes!

[bgwah]

I am bringing this to a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

aye

[Mopsus]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nay

[bgwah]

What's the point of voting aye on the original version and nay on the amendment? We're just clearing up some language that some feel was too vague.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Aye

[bgwah]

I see Marokai got MOPolitico to change his vote.

The original version is what I wanted, so I won't be too upset if this fails. Though I find the nay votes odd, to say the least.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I see Marokai got MOPolitico to change his vote.

The original version is what I wanted, so I won't be too upset if this fails. Though I find the nay votes odd, to say the least.

If they can't explain their reasoning, I'll assume they're just acting bitter.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I asked no one to vote in any particular way on this bill at all, guys. MOPolitico has done that on his own terms.

[Napoleon]

I asked no one to vote in any particular way on this bill at all, guys. MOPolitico has done that on his own terms.

Lol

[Marokai Backbeat]

I asked no one to vote in any particular way on this bill at all, guys. MOPolitico has done that on his own terms.

Lol

Seriously; If I was going to get him to vote on this one way or another, I would've asked him to vote that way before he voted on this.

[Mopsus]

For the record, Marokai in no way directly influenced me to change my vote. I changed my vote because of the section restricting membership of a caucus to members of a single party.

[Napoleon]

For the record, Marokai in no way directly influenced me to change my vote. I changed my vote because of the section restricting membership of a caucus to members of a single party.

That isn't really a change.