HB 1191: Party Organisation Act

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor:Oakvale
House Designation: HB 1191

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I open the floor for 72 hours for debate on this bill

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Bump let’s get some debate going on this bill.

[wxtransit]

While the primary idea sounds like an interesting concept, some parties do not have enough support in all three regions to sustain a primary. Also, having delegates elected is a more complicated process and less engaging for party membership as opposed to the current process, where all members are delegates. In addition, I believe that it is best for the parties to have the freedom to choose when they want to hold their primaries (some may not want to hold them at the same time).

Finally, I believe, as a party leader, that it is best for the party itself to decide how to run their own conventions and the voting process, as the leader is best in tune to the system that the party is best suited for. For example, point 7:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The leader is the best person to decide who should participate in the party's primary, not the regions.

[Mike Thick]

This is actually an idea that I came up with a little less than two years ago -- when I was Governor, I spitballed with Yankee about the possibility of having organized Presidential primaries. So, I'll butt in to offer my take:

Primaries are an interesting concept, but when you keep in mind that parties generally don't have more than one or two dozen active members, some primaries could have only a handful of voters. In addition, I think that IRL America's convention system is a pretty outdated model that takes power out of the hands of the actual voters, and the current system (in which the party's actual voters are the final arbiters of nominees) is more than adequate.

If Atlasia had hundreds or even thousands of active players in all sorts of different states, and you could get a few dozen people voting in each regional primary, maybe the non-convention part of this would be a good idea. With these things, simpler is usually better.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is actually an idea that I came up with a little less than two years ago -- when I was Governor, I spitballed with Yankee about the possibility of having organized Presidential primaries. So, I'll butt in to offer my take:

Primaries are an interesting concept, but when you keep in mind that parties generally don't have more than one or two dozen active members, some primaries could have only a handful of voters. In addition, I think that IRL America's convention system is a pretty outdated model that takes power out of the hands of the actual voters, and the current system (in which the party's actual voters are the final arbiters of nominees) is more than adequate.

If Atlasia had hundreds or even thousands of active players in all sorts of different states, and you could get a few dozen people voting in each regional primary, maybe the non-convention part of this would be a good idea. With these things, simpler is usually better.

I miss those days.


It is an important point about the size of the player base, in a given region.

[Oakvale]

In the interests of clarity I should say on the outset that if the imposition of a primary system in principle is a barrier to the rest of what I think is a very important piece of legislation's passage I'd have no particular objection to splitting the bill by amendment and introducing the notion at a later date.

I do think it's a conversation worth having.

[Oakvale]

If there's no further comment I'll submit an amendment shortly to excise the primary system since the primary purpose of the Act is actually to close a major loophole on the lack of a definition for a 'major' party in our Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there's no further comment I'll submit an amendment shortly to excise the primary system since the primary purpose of the Act is actually to close a major loophole on the lack of a definition for a 'major' party in our Constitution.

Ironically for me to be saying this you, but it is just too complex a system to maintain I would fear. It would be one step away from us adopting an electoral college. Maybe it would be a fun dynamic, but it is something I think a party should experiment with voluntarily with first before mandating the system for all parties.

[Oakvale]

I am leaving the "major party/recognised party" distinction in statute as I think it would give us some useful flexibility in legislating in the future - as anyone knows, there's a significant practical difference between a 'major party' on paper and a 'major party' proper.


An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[wxtransit]

By this definition, Labor is one member away from losing major party status.

one-party state

[Poirot]

Why strip away party affiliation appearing on ballot for someone in a member party? I think they should have the right to run under the party's name of their registration.

Strange coming from someone claiming political parties had no control who could be on a ballot using their name, and now you want to stop a citizen from appearing with his registered party.

Tiny parties are not a problem. I don't see the need to try to make them invisible or more difficult to exist.

If you want to make rules for parties, male rules for big ones. Why not forbid them to run primaries to choose one canddiate for a race, that way every party member could have the right to run in any election with the party's name. It could produce races with more candidates and offer more choices to citizens.     

[wxtransit]

Why strip away party affiliation appearing on ballot for someone in a member party? I think they should have the right to run under the party's name of their registration.

Strange coming from someone claiming political parties had no control who could be on a ballot using their name, and now you want to stop a citizen from appearing with his registered party.

Tiny parties are not a problem. I don't see the need to try to make them invisible or more difficult to exist.

If you want to make rules for parties, male rules for big ones. Why not forbid them to run primaries to choose one canddiate for a race, that way every party member could have the right to run in any election with the party's name. It could produce races with more candidates and offer more choices to citizens.     

I'm going to agree with Poirot here. Having individual parties is what makes Atlasia interesting, and if this passes, parties like the Liberal Democrats would effectively, in terms of elections, cease to exist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why strip away party affiliation appearing on ballot for someone in a member party? I think they should have the right to run under the party's name of their registration.

Strange coming from someone claiming political parties had no control who could be on a ballot using their name, and now you want to stop a citizen from appearing with his registered party.

Tiny parties are not a problem. I don't see the need to try to make them invisible or more difficult to exist.

If you want to make rules for parties, male rules for big ones. Why not forbid them to run primaries to choose one canddiate for a race, that way every party member could have the right to run in any election with the party's name. It could produce races with more candidates and offer more choices to citizens.     

I'm going to agree with Poirot here. Having individual parties is what makes Atlasia interesting, and if this passes, parties like the Liberal Democrats would effectively, in terms of elections, cease to exist.

You could offer an amendment to adjust that portion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Representatives have 24 hours to object.

[wxtransit]

Not sure if this is protocol since this amendment hasn't been adopted yet, but here's an amendment to the amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As long as they don't overlap, it is possible to do multiple amendments and even multiple votes at the same time. It is also possible to split an amendment and declare half friendly and half hostile and proceed with a vote on the hostile portion while the firendly one gets the 24 hours treatment. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oakvale's amendment is adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: No Feedback Given
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[wxtransit]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Come on, that PM only had 4 links in it!

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[Oakvale]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Bidenworth2020]

AYE