Labor Party Standing Committee thread: Endorsement voting

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Disappointed because of the dismal turnout or the fact that the resolution just squeezed by?

More the former than the latter, but the latter's a little concerning as well.

[Fritz]

Okay, I'm on board.

I would like to change my vote from abstain to Aye.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Apparently my name-calling didn't help turnout.   

[LastVoter]

Disappointed because of the dismal turnout or the fact that the resolution just squeezed by?

More the former than the latter, but the latter's a little concerning as well.

I think before next election we should send out PM's reminding people to vote, but we did do better than the liberal party in getting turnout in the Senate election.

[LastVoter]

In my opinion we should look for a new candidate outside the party instead of endorsing the Liberal candidate. It seems like Tweed is doing everything possible to make himself unelectable unfortunately.

[LastVoter]

I would like to ask a chairman to hold a vote on finding/fielding a new candidate to the left of the liberal party but less extremist/more electable than tweed.

Something like this:

Should we try to field our own candidate or recruit a new presidential candidate to endorse?
[]yes
[]no

[LastVoter]

Someone like Lief, Al or even the pair of lovers known as BRTD and Opebo.

[Napoleon]

Seatown,

Might it not be Tweed who is personally unelectable, but that a candidate lacking in involvement and results is unelectable?

Like, are you serious? I don't even think Al is registered here.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I would like to ask a chairman to hold a vote on finding/fielding a new candidate to the left of the liberal party but less extremist/more electable than tweed.

Something like this:

Should we try to field our own candidate or recruit a new presidential candidate to endorse?
[]yes
[]no

I would support this in theory, but I believe that we have a relative lack of options at this time.

Let's hold a vote, though. Voting is for forty-eight hours.



Should we try to field our own candidate or recruit a new presidential candidate to endorse?
[ ]Aye
[ ]Nay

[LastVoter]

Aye

[LastVoter]

Seatown,

Might it not be Tweed who is personally unelectable, but that a candidate lacking in involvement and results is unelectable?

Like, are you serious? I don't even think Al is registered here.

I am just throwing out some names. It's possible that if a candidate gets drafted by Labor he will be active.

[LastVoter]

Looks like we don't have an actual platform too, since we got sidetracked by Earl's platform since we were going to endorse him for the first election. We have some bits though.

Simfan, I'm eating a delicious spicy potato samosa. I actually don't respond well to red meat, though I love fish and am going to see about having some nice trout later in the night.

Barnes, I entirely agree with your assessment. How about this for the beginning of our platform:

Government is a function arising out of society in order to mediate between different groups within the society and is given the power to ensure, ideally, that no part of society is in a position of absolute dominance over the others. Of course, it doesn't always work that way. Redistribution is an attempt to correct for human error within this system. The human error's name is susceptibility to tribalism and greed.

However, within the system of a government set up to ensure a certain measure of equality in the treatment of the people through the codification of customs into theoretically blind laws, there must be a preferential option for those who do not have recourse to other means of social and cultural involvement: The elderly, the children, the disabled, and, especially, the poor. It is for this reason that a truly socialist and Labor party pursues ideas of, to a certain extent, redistribution even when it is not required to address some particularly glaring flaw. The effect of this is to among other things bring to the forefront a cultural discussion and dialectic that forms the culture and the society into an exuberant dance around ideals of freedom and justice, equality and privilege, rich poverty and wasted wealth.

Hatman, of course we are somewhat hypocritical but at the same time self-aware and hence in a way fundamentally honest and good-hearted Fabians! That's part of the fun!

If it might help you, this is the rough draft I proposed when I founded the SDC :

Here is the idea for a basic platform :
- We support an active involvement of the State in the economy, in order to establish a fair repartition of wealth, to protect the neediest citizens against destitution and to guarantee everybody a universal access to basic services like health and school.
- We support tough regulations on businesses, in order to avoid corporate abuses of power and behaviours detrimental to workers or consumers.
- We support strict gender, racial, religious equality, to be enforced through means that keep the society united. We refuse to split the national community into sub-communities and commit to treat equally every citizen.
- We support a person's freedom to do everything that doesn't harm himself or another person. We believe that the government's job isn't to impose a moral code, even if such moral code is supported by a majority. We commit to protect religious freedom, and also the freedom not to believe.
- We support environmental legislation that will help Atlasia contributing to the reduction of global warming and ensure for every citizen a better quality of life.
- We support a Human Rights diplomacy, based on the idea that every world citizen yearns to live free. We refuse developing friendships with dictators in the name of selfish national interests. We also refuse neoconservative theories, and believe that Atlasia's job is not to uniterally implement regime changes.

It's very brief and vague, but it could serve as a base for further developments.

I think we should take either of those and put it on the first page so people know what our party is about instead of searching through many pages like I had to.

I'd like to add - we support nationalization of utilities and energy sectors of the economy.

[Insula Dei]

aye on the own presidential candidate thing.

[hawkeye59]

Sorry I couldn't vote, but I support endorsing Napoleon.

[Napoleon]

Sorry I couldn't vote, but I support endorsing Napoleon.

Thank you Hawkeye.

[Хahar 🤔]

If this party endorses Napoleon, it obviously has no reason to exist.

[bgwah]

If this party endorses Napoleon, it obviously has no reason to exist.

Vote for Tweed, comrade.

[LastVoter]

If this party endorses Napoleon, it obviously has no reason to exist.

Vote for Tweed, comrade.

Run on your own ticket and we'll endorse and vote for you. Tweed is a deadweight that would even lose to clarence.

[bgwah]

Recent polling shows Clarence and Tweed tied. The left traditionally under polls, too. Furthermore, that was with Liberals voting Clarence in the poll to make it look like our ticket should drop out and endorse them. I do not agree with your conclusion.

Furthermore, Xahar is right about one thing. One of the main points of JCP dissolution was to have more competition. That goal is not met if all left-of-center parties simply endorse one ticket.

[LastVoter]

Recent polling shows Clarence and Tweed tied. The left traditionally under polls, too. Furthermore, that was with Liberals voting Clarence in the poll to make it look like our ticket should drop out and endorse them. I do not agree with your conclusion.

Furthermore, Xahar is right about one thing. One of the main points of JCP dissolution was to have more competition. That goal is not met if all left-of-center parties simply endorse one ticket.

Labor members also voted for Clarence over Tweed. I think you are much more qualified and interested candidate than Tweed, that's why you should drop him. Just look at it this way: You are campaigning, compared to Tweed who probably visits this board once a week.

[Napoleon]

No, I do not think your ticket should drop out and endorse me. I do think voters should be encouraged to vote for a better ticket. You shouldn't feel compelled to vote for a ticket just to make things competitive. You don't know what will or will not be competitive. How many of us thought the Whigs would win two seats with wormyguy sneaking in as well?

Kal and I are in this race to win, and we intend to compete for any voters we can. I see no harm in that.

[bgwah]

If you're in it to win it, you should be after Tweed/Bgwah voters' second preferences. Having Liberals claiming they will preference Clarence higher than us is counterproductive.

[Napoleon]

If you're in it to win it, you should be after Tweed/Bgwah voters' second preferences. Having Liberals claiming they will preference Clarence higher than us is counterproductive.

I have no control over other voters' second preferences. Labor voters also are supporting Clarence over Tweed. It might be because of Tweed's message. Are you blaming me for their preference? That is ridiculous. I would love to win second preferences but your campaign is demand supporters to join in its opposition to IRV by not casting preferential votes.

[bgwah]

I, for one, will not be preferencing the Tweed ticket

Anyway, Tweed has said he's open to preferencing other candidates despite his personal dislike of the IRV system. I'm sure he can be convinced to give his second preference to the Napoleon/Kalwejt ticket. Mutual second preferencing is the best bet for both tickets and for all progressives.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I, for one, will not be preferencing the Tweed ticket

Anyway, Tweed has said he's open to preferencing other candidates despite his personal dislike of the IRV system. I'm sure he can be convinced to give his second preference to the Napoleon/Kalwejt ticket. Mutual second preferencing is the best bet for both tickets and for all progressives.

This is what I've been trying to argue for.