Right to party membership?

[Poirot]

The Federalist party voted for the expulsion of a member but the Chairman refuses to ask the Registrar General to modify the party registration of this person. Here is his reasoning:

The motion is adopted.

However, I will draw your attention to following passages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congress grants the authority to regulate voter regulation to the Congress. I can find no post-reset statute establishing a process by which the parties can alter the registration of voters as administered by the Registrar General. I mean that could be dangerous, imagine if Labor voted to remove all the Federalists from the rolls? We cannot have that, obviously, so naturally there are strict rules governing that sort of thing as there should be.

Congress has not passed any laws establishing this procedure, but it does have a law on the books (cited above) that establishes party affiliation as an optional choice of the registrant. As the closest thing we can find to a statute on this matter, it must be taken as the governing authority and our bylaws cannot contradict constitutionally granted legislative authority exercised by the Congress.

Therefore, while the motion is adopted, I do not feel that I can legally request the RG To change Mr. Oakvale's registration, nor would I advise the Registrar General to take such an action, without first consulting with legal assistance and preparing for the possibility of a lawsuit that would from my interpretations succeed in all likelihood.

The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of pre-reset assumptions were carried over post reset, but the laws that underpin those long held assumptions were of course wiped clean and never passed again subsequent to the reset. This is not the first time where we have found such assumptions to be baseless as a result of this, and thus should not be surprised that it is the case with expulsion. Also, the provisions in our bylaws dealing with expulsion, date back to 2013 if not 2012, which is pre-reset.

Seems like a way for party leadership to get what it wants anyway over the will of the members. Can the Registrar act recognizing the will of the party id the Chair doesn't want it?

Maybe there is no law that details the registration of an expulsed party member but the RG can use judgement and common sense. By pretending there is no possibility for a party to control their membership it's like we are creating a new fundamental right: the right to party membership.

There is no right to register into a party even if the party does not agree. Political parties are private entities and they have their own functioning rules. Some parties have an expulsion procedure to control who is part of membership. The Registrar General can respect a party's decision to not consider a citizen to be part of it. It's following the authority of a party on membership.

A citizen can register a party affiliation but it's optional. You can be part of the game, run for office without a party affiliation. It doesn't exclude you from being in Atlasia if you don't have a party affiliation.

Giving the example of Labor voting to expel all Federalists to justify parties cannot ask for changes in registration is treating the RG as a dumb person. Why would the RG follow a party's request that applies to members of another party! The RG doesn't change a registration at anybody's request. The RG can judge if it's a serious request.   

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Personally I've been always viewing Atlasian party membership as something analogous to U.S. party registration.

[Oakvale]

The basic issue here is that party membership proper is decoupled from your party affiliation as stated in your registration. Back during the Dissolution of the JCP and RPP a lot of people protested when their registrations were unconstitutionally altered without their consent. I supported dissolution at the time on pragmatic grounds but obviously this was an error - even if the JCP as a party ceased to exist its members would still be registered under that name. After all, there's plenty of people technically registered for all manner of effectively non-existent parties.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I mean, the FEA is a garbage law that ought to have been replaced months ago, but that shouldn't be news to anyone.

[Anna Komnene]

I mean, the FEA is a garbage law that ought to have been replaced months ago, but that shouldn't be news to anyone.

If you have ideas for how to amend it, you could always send them to me and I'll sponsor it for you. I've always said I'm willing to sponsor things from my constituents.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I mean, the FEA is a garbage law that ought to have been replaced months ago, but that shouldn't be news to anyone.

If you have ideas for how to amend it, you could always send them to me and I'll sponsor it for you. I've always said I'm willing to sponsor things from my constituents.

Eh, I'm not a fan of the FEA either (I'm the one who has to endure the headaches, of course I'm not), but it seems that most of the time, grievance-airing is all bark and no bite, so I've accepted it as fait accompli.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I mean, the FEA is a garbage law that ought to have been replaced months ago, but that shouldn't be news to anyone.

If you have ideas for how to amend it, you could always send them to me and I'll sponsor it for you. I've always said I'm willing to sponsor things from my constituents.

I just might take you up on that offer. Electoral reform is something I'd intended to push for as president, but that didn't work out, exactly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Federalist party voted for the expulsion of a member but the Chairman refuses to ask the Registrar General to modify the party registration of this person. Here is his reasoning:

The motion is adopted.

However, I will draw your attention to following passages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congress grants the authority to regulate voter regulation to the Congress. I can find no post-reset statute establishing a process by which the parties can alter the registration of voters as administered by the Registrar General. I mean that could be dangerous, imagine if Labor voted to remove all the Federalists from the rolls? We cannot have that, obviously, so naturally there are strict rules governing that sort of thing as there should be.

Congress has not passed any laws establishing this procedure, but it does have a law on the books (cited above) that establishes party affiliation as an optional choice of the registrant. As the closest thing we can find to a statute on this matter, it must be taken as the governing authority and our bylaws cannot contradict constitutionally granted legislative authority exercised by the Congress.

Therefore, while the motion is adopted, I do not feel that I can legally request the RG To change Mr. Oakvale's registration, nor would I advise the Registrar General to take such an action, without first consulting with legal assistance and preparing for the possibility of a lawsuit that would from my interpretations succeed in all likelihood.

The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of pre-reset assumptions were carried over post reset, but the laws that underpin those long held assumptions were of course wiped clean and never passed again subsequent to the reset. This is not the first time where we have found such assumptions to be baseless as a result of this, and thus should not be surprised that it is the case with expulsion. Also, the provisions in our bylaws dealing with expulsion, date back to 2013 if not 2012, which is pre-reset.

Seems like a way for party leadership to get what it wants anyway over the will of the members. Can the Registrar act recognizing the will of the party id the Chair doesn't want it?

Maybe there is no law that details the registration of an expulsed party member but the RG can use judgement and common sense. By pretending there is no possibility for a party to control their membership it's like we are creating a new fundamental right: the right to party membership.

There is no right to register into a party even if the party does not agree. Political parties are private entities and they have their own functioning rules. Some parties have an expulsion procedure to control who is part of membership. The Registrar General can respect a party's decision to not consider a citizen to be part of it. It's following the authority of a party on membership.

A citizen can register a party affiliation but it's optional. You can be part of the game, run for office without a party affiliation. It doesn't exclude you from being in Atlasia if you don't have a party affiliation.

Giving the example of Labor voting to expel all Federalists to justify parties cannot ask for changes in registration is treating the RG as a dumb person. Why would the RG follow a party's request that applies to members of another party! The RG doesn't change a registration at anybody's request. The RG can judge if it's a serious request.   

"RG can judge" is rather arbitrary and the minute someone got screwed by such an arrangement, you would be the first one demanding changes.

[Poirot]

The basic issue here is that party membership proper is decoupled from your party affiliation as stated in your registration. Back during the Dissolution of the JCP and RPP a lot of people protested when their registrations were unconstitutionally altered without their consent. I supported dissolution at the time on pragmatic grounds but obviously this was an error - even if the JCP as a party ceased to exist its members would still be registered under that name. After all, there's plenty of people technically registered for all manner of effectively non-existent parties.

The JCP and RPP were even before my time. Banning a whole party, it's not the same as the case we have here. We are talking of an active party wanting to get rid of one individual.

What is the article in the current constitution that the JCP and RPP story would refer to.

[Poirot]

"RG can judge" is rather arbitrary and the minute someone got screwed by such an arrangement, you would be the first one demanding changes.

Yes use judgement. Sometimes Cabinet officials have to use judgement. The Secreatary of Elections having to determine if the intent of voter is clear on a weird ballot. Some people also want the SoFE to decide what is "campaining in the voting booth". It can be very subjective. The Registrar would not accept a request like the far fetched example of one party voting for expulsion of members of another party or some random request of one individual targeting another individual.

Expulsions are rare anyway. Nobody got screwed in this case. The RG can judge a request made by the Chairman is valid. It followed the internal rules of the party, members had time to vote, the result is clear, the result id not contested. The RG and the public can see a party decided it wanted to cut links with one individual.

I am not a member of a party and NCYankee is chairman of a major party so I can't believe I am defending the right of political parties. The Federalist is a recognized party. It can set its rules. There is a provision for expulsion. The party has the right to expel someone and not be associated with this person anymore. That would include not being listed as in the party, not running in elections carrying the party's name. Like a political restraining order.

The other view that is presented is a citizen can linked itself to a party and the party has no right and must endure the situation. A citizen can run in election carrying the name of the party even if the party does not agree. You could have two presidential tickets from the same party (one not supported by the party) creating confusion with voters. A citizen using the party's name could behave badly in public or do illegal things soiling the reputation of the party. And even after an expulsion the citizen could rejoin the party in an endless loop. Is this the absurd reality?

I think parties have the right to decide who is in the party, who can use its name, who can be associated with it. They have the right to expulse. they have the right to tell the RG it doesn't want an individual to be associated with it and stop listing someone as part of the party following a reasonable process of expulsion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"RG can judge" is rather arbitrary and the minute someone got screwed by such an arrangement, you would be the first one demanding changes.

Yes use judgement. Sometimes Cabinet officials have to use judgement. The Secreatary of Elections having to determine if the intent of voter is clear on a weird ballot. Some people also want the SoFE to decide what is "campaining in the voting booth". It can be very subjective. The Registrar would not accept a request like the far fetched example of one party voting for expulsion of members of another party or some random request of one individual targeting another individual.

Expulsions are rare anyway. Nobody got screwed in this case. The RG can judge a request made by the Chairman is valid. It followed the internal rules of the party, members had time to vote, the result is clear, the result id not contested. The RG and the public can see a party decided it wanted to cut links with one individual.

I am not a member of a party and NCYankee is chairman of a major party so I can't believe I am defending the right of political parties. The Federalist is a recognized party. It can set its rules. There is a provision for expulsion. The party has the right to expel someone and not be associated with this person anymore. That would include not being listed as in the party, not running in elections carrying the party's name. Like a political restraining order.

The other view that is presented is a citizen can linked itself to a party and the party has no right and must endure the situation. A citizen can run in election carrying the name of the party even if the party does not agree. You could have two presidential tickets from the same party (one not supported by the party) creating confusion with voters. A citizen using the party's name could behave badly in public or do illegal things soiling the reputation of the party. And even after an expulsion the citizen could rejoin the party in an endless loop. Is this the absurd reality?

I think parties have the right to decide who is in the party, who can use its name, who can be associated with it. They have the right to expulse. they have the right to tell the RG it doesn't want an individual to be associated with it and stop listing someone as part of the party following a reasonable process of expulsion.

I don't think any of that legitimizes the majority altering the registration of a single member. This is basic equal protections and no, political parties are not clubs. They are composed of registered members, the rules for such registration being under the authority of Congress to regulate, as per the constitution. If we maintained our own roster of members and had complete control over it under "our rules", then yes, it would be entirely up to "our rules". Though ironically, "our rules" aren't much help in this situation either for a variety of a reasons already stated. But our list of members is maintained by the Registrar General, in accordance with the laws. People are removed from that list (deregistration, falling off the roles, in accordance with provisions established by the constitution and statute), so that list is regulated and protected by Federal law.