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

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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...

[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.

[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.

[bgwah]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[bgwah]

You all interpreted it as intra-party caucuses when you voted for it before. It doesn't really make sense to change.

[bgwah]

"Honorary" members certainly won't get any recognition from the government. But they don't under the current version either. I don't believe this version would "ban" a caucus deciding to allow them anymore than the previous one would.

[bgwah]

The current tally is 6-2. This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[bgwah]

With 6 ayes and 2 nays, this bill has passed and is now presented to the President for his signature or veto.