L502: Regional Party Label Act (BILL PASSED)

[This account no longer in use.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Assemblyman RGN

72 hours to discuss.

[kyc0705]

I oppose this bill, as I oppose any superfluous methods of partisan classification. They tend to breed more confusion and division than anything else. Our politics should be focused on unity, and not cut up into multiple labels.

[Lachi]

I don't agree with this either, and I agree with the above post, labels will just create confusion and division.

[This account no longer in use.]

For my entire political career, I have worked against partisanship, and voting for this would be contradictory.

[Wells]

Ugh geez guys this isn't some terrible thing that's going to divide us, the South and Fremont (i. e. every region besides us) have done it and they're fine.

I support this bill, and would love to have the chance to sign this. I'll come up with a nice long post tomorrow.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Ugh geez guys this isn't some terrible thing that's going to divide us, the South and Fremont (i. e. every region besides us) have done it and they're fine.

I support this bill, and would love to have the chance to sign this. I'll come up with a nice long post tomorrow.

Actually what I'm supposed to say today, was already said by our honorable Governor. I'll just add a few details, if possible, in his "nice long post".

[JGibson]

I am going to support this bill. As Governor Wells has stated, regional sub-parties has worked well in the Fremont and the South regions.

[Wells]

My nice long post (which I started yesterday but other things came in the way):

Wow RGN, what a great idea! It's about time we caught up to the other two regions when it comes to this issue.

I do notice some concerns about these parties, so I'll try to make a case for this. Upon doing my research, I identified a few reasons the South reintroduced regional parties a few months ago (to be quickly followed by Fremont). First of all, regional parties are a fun addition to the game. Second, they had a strong base of support according to the polls at the time. (There had been two polls done during the debate which averaged a 64% support for them in the South.) Third, the IDS used to have them and they had worked out fine then.

Former President and current Representative Yankee has this to say about the regional parties that the IDS used to have: "This created dynamism and competition in a region that was heavily dominated by conservatives and libertarians, with only a minority on the left." This is relevant to our region, which recently had a 4-1 Labor majority in this Assembly (and has a solid Labor majority right now) and has elected a Labor Governor by 50% (against a Federalist) and 30% (against a moderate) margins. We effectively have one party control and have had it for a while, but we don't recognize the nuances and differences in our beliefs that regional parties would allow us to see.

TL;DR Regional parties are fun, have worked in the past, and can work for regions with a skewed ideology. I'll be happy to address any problems that people still have with it.

[This account no longer in use.]

I aim for unity, not division. I feel that regional parties would only divide the people of this region more.

[Leinad]

It's another fun dimension to the game. I think it's silly to say that it will cause disunity--I mean, why not eliminate political parties? But even then we would vote in different ways and thus have a similar factional nature--so why not eliminate votes so we can all be united?

The confusion idea doesn't really make sense. Anyone who pays a small amount of attention can figure it out.

Regional parties are a great idea, guys. Vote for it.

[Wells]

Thanks for those very true words Leinad, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

It will allow for more competition in regional levels as well as in national levels. Coalitions (regional parties) in regions will be a big help/player in electing someone.

[OneJ]

It's another fun dimension to the game. I think it's silly to say that it will cause disunity--I mean, why not eliminate political parties? But even then we would vote in different ways and thus have a similar factional nature--so why not eliminate votes so we can all be united?

The confusion idea doesn't really make sense. Anyone who pays a small amount of attention can figure it out.

Regional parties are a great idea, guys. Vote for it.

This. Couldn't have said it better y'all.

[Clyde1998]

I think that this would be a very good idea for the region. The region is dominated by Labor and could lead to much more exciting elections and cross-regional alliances. Additionally, federally registered independents would be able to join a regional party that may be closer to their views than any of the major federal parties. Also, this bill doesn't require people to join a regional party, so anyone who doesn't want to join one can remain as an independent at regional level.

I hope that the Assembly votes in favour of this bill, as I think that it could make regional governance more interesting.

[JGibson]

Clyde, those are all excellent points taken in favor of this proposal.

[Poirot]

Since non-assembly people have given their opinion in this thread I will express my opinion against the bill.

At the time when I saw register thread for regional parties appear I raised the issue of constitutionality. Registration is regulated by the federal level and registration included sate location and party affiliation. The region would have to keep track of regional party listing. Now it's easy to consult registration by looking at the RG census list.

Looking at the South there seems to be a dozen people with regional party. That is not many. I don't see regional party convention and writing policy.

Not sure I see how it could lead to cross regional alliances sinec it's a regional party. To form alliances outside major federal parties? If a federal party limits the number of candidates for regional office and more members would like ti run, maybe get the federal party to change a rule (and deal with the drama).

I don't see this as necessary.   

[Barnes]

If I may speak with the indulgence of the Assembly, I will just add that there is absolutely no question of constitutional conflict with adopting regional registration so long as the contents of the regional list mirrors that of the federal list.

For reference, please see the Supreme Court case Atlasia v. Southeast II (2010) which I argued as Attorney General.

The merits of such a system are entirely for this estimable body to decide, but I thought that specific ruling would be applicable for the judicial aspect.

[This account no longer in use.]

For the record, both sides have put up exceptional points, and if the vote ends up being tied 2-2 (as it looks like it probably will be), I plan to vote Aye to bring it to the Governor; otherwise I will likely abstain or vote Nay.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

First, as the incumbent Attorney General, I would confirm Barnes' statement on the constitutionality of this bill. There is absolutely no reason why a region may not allow her citizens to voluntarily enter a formal association with a political movement, or to not this affiliation on the ballot. The leading authorities on the Fourth Constitution all agree on this point, and for good reason; with all due respect to Mr. Poirot, I do not find his arguments remotely convincing.

Quite a few people have already expressed their support for this bill, to the point where there is little more for me to say. The speculative arguments for the proposal are clear; I would like to present a historical argument, based not upon prophesy or guesswork, but upon solid fact.

Four months ago, while serving as Governor of Fremont (a post which has since been superseded by my current office), I introduced on the floor of the Legislative Assembly a bill to authorize the formation of regional political alliances. As far as I can tell, the bill now before this chamber is an exact copy of the legislation I passed in Fremont, which was itself a revision of legislation passed by the Southern Chamber of Delegates last year. In the time since the passage of the Fremont Party Label Act, my region has seen participation in regional elections more than double, with three candidates for legislative assembly in the January elections increasing to seven candidates for the House of Commons last weekend. There exist now four regional parties with members now in elected office, representing variously the left, center-left, center, and center-right. It would be incorrect to state that this bill alone may be credited for the verifiable explosion of activity that has occurred over the last four months, but there is no doubt in my mind that it has played a part in the ongoing regional renaissance.

I would urge the Assembly to send this bill to the governor's desk with all due haste, that the region of my birth may join her sisters in the ranks of those who have sought to bring vitality and renewal to regional elections.

[kyc0705]

As debate concludes, I would once again like to reiterate my opposition to this bill. What we have here is an attempt to divide the people of Lincoln into more political groups, for them to agree on less, to work together less, to increase the degree of partisanship in this region.

Perhaps in the past, a Laborist would not work with a Federalist, and that would be a disgraceful show of party before policy, but what will we see going forward? Laborists refusing to work with Laborists, Federalists refusing to work with Federalists, because they sit on opposite sides of the party's own platform?

I encourage any members who have questions about the possible outcomes of this bill to vote against it. We cannot simply assume it will work out well. Now, more than ever, we must work to increase the unity in our region and our nation's politics, not work to further compartmentalize it. This bill will accomplish the exact opposite of that principle.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We cannot simply assume it will work out well.

Indeed, there is no need to assume anything, because this idea has already been implemented successfully elsewhere. Were the proposal at hand a recipe for division, as you assert, such would have been previously observed in the regions where it already exists. In fact, Fremont's government remains the most bi-partisan in the country (every bill passed in the last session had at least one liberal and one conservative vote for it), while the most dysfunctional and divided legislature is that of the South, where regional parties are without representation. It would seem that regional parties actually aid the cause of compromise and bipartisanship, by forcing lawmakers to cooperate with other parties in order to govern.

[kyc0705]

We cannot simply assume it will work out well.

Indeed, there is no need to assume anything, because this idea has already been implemented successfully elsewhere. Were the proposal at hand a recipe for division, as you assert, such would have been previously observed in the regions where it already exists. In fact, Fremont's government remains the most bi-partisan in the country (every bill passed in the last session had at least one liberal and one conservative vote for it), while the most dysfunctional and divided legislature is that of the South, where regional parties are without representation. It would seem that regional parties actually aid the cause of compromise and bipartisanship, by forcing lawmakers to cooperate with other parties in order to govern.

What I don't understand about this resolution is how it's supposed to help make politics more accessible for people. As you have said, there's no consensus that the passage of a similar bill in Fremont was tied to an upswing in activity. I prefer to take the road to less partisanship, a more literal way of viewing politics and the right to a vote: through individual candidates and their policies, rather than an amalgamation of national and regional sects.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We cannot simply assume it will work out well.

Indeed, there is no need to assume anything, because this idea has already been implemented successfully elsewhere. Were the proposal at hand a recipe for division, as you assert, such would have been previously observed in the regions where it already exists. In fact, Fremont's government remains the most bi-partisan in the country (every bill passed in the last session had at least one liberal and one conservative vote for it), while the most dysfunctional and divided legislature is that of the South, where regional parties are without representation. It would seem that regional parties actually aid the cause of compromise and bipartisanship, by forcing lawmakers to cooperate with other parties in order to govern.

What I don't understand about this resolution is how it's supposed to help make politics more accessible for people. As you have said, there's no consensus that the passage of a similar bill in Fremont was tied to an upswing in activity. I prefer to take the road to less partisanship, a more literal way of viewing politics and the right to a vote: through individual candidates and their policies, rather than an amalgamation of national and regional sects.

Except I never said anything of the sort; to the contrary, I maintain in my post that while RPLA was not solely responsible for the increased activity in Fremont, it was definitely an important factor.

[kyc0705]

We cannot simply assume it will work out well.

Indeed, there is no need to assume anything, because this idea has already been implemented successfully elsewhere. Were the proposal at hand a recipe for division, as you assert, such would have been previously observed in the regions where it already exists. In fact, Fremont's government remains the most bi-partisan in the country (every bill passed in the last session had at least one liberal and one conservative vote for it), while the most dysfunctional and divided legislature is that of the South, where regional parties are without representation. It would seem that regional parties actually aid the cause of compromise and bipartisanship, by forcing lawmakers to cooperate with other parties in order to govern.

What I don't understand about this resolution is how it's supposed to help make politics more accessible for people. As you have said, there's no consensus that the passage of a similar bill in Fremont was tied to an upswing in activity. I prefer to take the road to less partisanship, a more literal way of viewing politics and the right to a vote: through individual candidates and their policies, rather than an amalgamation of national and regional sects.

Except I never said anything of the sort; to the contrary, I maintain in my post that while RPLA was not solely responsible for the increased activity in Fremont, it was definitely an important factor.

It's not exactly a consensus though — you say there is "no doubt in your mind."

But to save this discussion from descending into a petty squabble over semantics, I would want further research on this policy's effects in other regions before making such a change to our electoral laws. Since no concrete presentation exists, I will not support this measure at this time, and remain firmly in the camp of my original position.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

While as the sponsor of the bill, I do agree with those who spoke in favor of it. There's no more I need to add since that a lot of non-assembly people had made their point.