SB 8601: Party Organization Act (Final Vote on House Ver.)

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Sestak

[Sestak]

Right, so this allows parties to change their name, dissolve, disown candidates, and merge.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Why are you numbering this bill "8601?"

[fhtagn]

Yeah, no. The federal government should never have the right to alter anyone's registration information without that specific person's consent.

[Sestak]

Yeah, no. The federal government should never have the right to alter anyone's registration information without that specific person's consent.

So, does that mean that the name change of Citizens to Alliance shouldn't have been allowed?

[fhtagn]

Yeah, no. The federal government should never have the right to alter anyone's registration information without that specific person's consent.

So, does that mean that the name change of Citizens to Alliance shouldn't have been allowed?

If the individuals did not express consent to change their registration, yes.

[wxtransit]

wut

If they don't want their party name changed, then fine, they can go in the New Register Thread and change it themselves. But if I'm the leader of a party and I change the name of said party, it's still a private organization governed by myself, not the government, and it can change its name 700 times if it pleases.

And I thought I was the statist.

[Canis]

I don't see whats the big deal with this bill it just saves the hassle of having each member of a party re register when a party changes its name or dissolves

[Lachi]

Nowhere in that bill does it say the government by itself can just change a person's party registration though, it has to go through the party members first, so I don't see where the problem is.

[fhtagn]

Nowhere in that bill does it say the government by itself can just change a person's party registration though, it has to go through the party members first, so I don't see where the problem is.

Try actually reading the bill, it's not hard. If someone had voted no on a name change, dissolving, or a merger, or they simply didn't vote, their registration is changed without their consent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Zaybay]

This obviously is just a measure to make things easier for the game to function, and, to keep said game dynamic, engaging, and interesting, such action must be taken. I see no problem with the bill presented.

[Sestak]

This was all law prior to the reset, btw. People just kept acting as if it was still law post-reset (see Alliance merger).

[fhtagn]

Once again, the federal government should not be given the power to alter this without anyone's consent. We have already seen issues with this in the court case over merging Labor/PUP where several members did not consent to having their registration to PUP. If people no longer wish to remain members of a party and wish for their registration to be changed, nothing stops them from changing it themselves.

[Sirius_]

The way I see it, if you are a member of a private organization, including a political party, you are subject to changes made by the leadership. Any private sector business, charitable organization, etc can merge with others and change their names whenever they want, and if you don't like it you're free to leave. Political parties aren't a branch of the government, and requiring a quorum of the members is already greater limitation than most organizations have. Also, party registration does not affect one's citizenship status in any way, and I don't see a reason to be so upset about it.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

The way I see it, if you are a member of a private organization, including a political party, you are subject to changes made by the leadership. Any private sector business, charitable organization, etc can merge with others and change their names whenever they want, and if you don't like it you're free to leave. Political parties aren't a branch of the government, and requiring a quorum of the members is already greater limitation than most organizations have. Also, party registration does not affect one's citizenship status in any way, and I don't see a reason to be so upset about it.

People shoudn't be forced into a group that they didn't consent to joining. I don't see what the issue with having people manually change their registration is anyway. I should also point out that last time when PUP and Labor attempted to merge multiple people immediately rejoined Labor from PUP that didn't consent to the merger. I don't believe not voting should be interpreted as being ok with a merger.

[Lumine]

It should be noted that the Labor merge is a poor example to choose as a standard given how irregular and arguably undemocratic it was, as barely any member voted on it and it would not have mustered any reasonable level of quorum. That was certainly not the norm, it was an exceptional case that shouldn't be treated as the constant case.

In contrast, other mergers or dissolutions have had a significant number of people voting on them and a mandate, and certainly didn't pose a problem pre-reset. If - as the bill notes - the quorum set by a party has been reached in such a vote I think it's clear that a mandate has been achieved and that the process at hand should be conducted, people who disagree being perfectly able to maintain their current registration if they do not wish for it to change.

I do fail to comprehend why this should be held as an example of government tyranny and thus require the impractical current set of limitations to remain, when the admittedly irregular situation with Labor-PUP (a unique case on its own) can be easily addressed by demanding a quorum for such decisions to be binding.

At least to me this does seem like a common sense measure.

[fhtagn]

The party that people are registered under falls under the authority of the RG. If people did not specifically give consent to change their registration information, the RG has no power to change their registration to another party or to independent, nor should they have that power. Party members who voted in favor of a merger or dissolution have obviously given consent and are able to have their registration information changed, however those who voted against or did not vote should not have that information changed until they give consent to the RG to do so.

Or do the Labor members of Congress hate consent now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The presence or absence of these laws and the continual administration of them after they have existed is certainly a problem that needs to be discussed. However, the matter of whether or not having these in place in the first place (and by extension enforcement of such) in terms of the pros and cons is a debate all of its own and a it is a debate should occur.

It is my belief that as long as party affiliation is a process administered by the federal government and thus sanction by and subject too the laws that govern and limit that of the federal government's power, the act of affiliating oneself by registering with a party constitutes an act of free speech on the individual basis.

If the rosters and registrations of the organizations in question were administered by the organizations themselves then the rules governing membership would be up to the bylaws of said organizations and as long as basic non-discrimination is adhered to, anything goes.

The same cannot be the case for the government. And therefore allowing for others to engage in and allowing for the government act upon wishes of a select number to alter the political expression of another individual runs contrary to the spirit of Article I. The Government and the constitution should act to protect and preserve minority whims from the tyrannical wishes of the majority. That is what separates Democracy from the lynch mob.

This is especially heinous when it comes to the act of dissolution. In this situation the people who have given up are dictating the outcome to those who are committed to seeing the matter through. The survival of both the RPP in 2009 and the Feds in 2015 is testament to the misguided nature of allowing such a practice. If a party loses steam or falls out of favor, the voters will over the course of time determine its fate. No one ever took away Angus right to be a PLPer long after that party ceased to exist. And the no one deprived Smoltchanov of being a Liberal long after that party ceased to exist.

The idea that we are going to place the burden on those who wish to maintain their affiliation, upon whom the greater burden already falls by nature of the contrary political winds, strikes as being perhaps among the greatest injustices as well as the greatest slap in the face that the government could possibly endorse, sanctify and legitimize. It is the simplest principle in the world, if you think a party is doomed, you are free to depart at any time. You shouldn't try to impose that view on those that disagree with you. We have also seen people hop on bandwagons, outside meddling, people joining parties just to vote to dissolve them. This level of corruption that is produced by allowing party dissolution should leave anyone deeply disturbed.

[Sestak]

Yankee, are your concerns primarily connected to dissolutions and mergers or do they extend to name changes as well?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, are your concerns primarily connected to dissolutions and mergers or do they extend to name changes as well?

My concerns extend to all of the above, but I am most concerned about dissolution and mergers yes since those shift an allegiance without consent of the affected person.

[Lechasseur]

I agree with NCY and Fhtagn on this. You shouldn't be forced to change affiliation if you don't want to

[Pericles]

I don't think it's feasible to have masses of people be members of zombie parties that really no longer exist. That could be a way for people to lose connection to Atlasia and for activity and interest in the game to decrease. Parties should have the right to change themselves. I think this bill has taken reasonable steps to prevent abuse of that right. I would be open to an amendment to ensure that those who actually get out and vote against-and so are clearly active and have an expressed position-are not registered under the new party, though this should probably only apply for mergers and dissolutions not name changes. When people register as the member of a party, and in a way they place their registration status under the trust of that party and so parties should have the right to change and so have the authority to change their registration status. People do have the opportunity to revoke their membership of that party at any time. Alternatively, I would be open to mandating that either the party chair or the Registrar General ensure that all members of the party that has changed are contacted so they are aware, a lack of a change in their registration should then be interpreted by default as consent for the change in the party.

[Lechasseur]

That actually sounds reasonable

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must disagree, we are thus placing the burden on the infringed minority.

You guys keep referencing dead parties and masses of zombie voters, that rarely happens.

The concern we should be focused on are those like the UA in 2017, like the RPP in 2009 (almost) and like the Feds in 2015 (almost) where there was a group that had essentially given up on the party and wanted to essentially force their will on the rest who had not given up.

Why do we keep coming back to this notion of treating the minority as the "nuisance" and putting the burden on them?  This is a very dangerous precedent and one we should not be conceding to in any way. It should be the other way around, the burden of dissolution and merger should fall 100% on those who are pushing for it. There is no burden placed on those seeking to change the party presently, that is remotely equal to the burden that would be place on those opposed to such under the provisions being proposed. We are thus engaging in a direct violation and substantially greater burden on one group, just to fancy the whims of taste on the party of another group. Very dangerous indeed and one we should all be rather deeply disturbed by.

I would point out that in this game, "parties" predate the creation of the government and the constitution itself. The Atlas Forum Democrats and Republicans existed before the first constitution was created, therefore the existence of parties both large and small have always been an integral force in the existence of the game. Furthermore the parties act not just as political parties but also as social movements and philosophical movements as well all contained into one. Furthermore their membership is sanctioned and administered not by the organizations themselves, but by Federal law and thus as Federal law we have an obligation under the constitution both in letter and in spirit to respect the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association when it comes to the affiliations of the citizens with the parties. As I have long said, if this were merely a case of membership administered by the parties themselves, then yes it would fall under the guise of that very same freedom of association for that group to make its own rules concerning membership, but even there those are regulated often by anti-discrimination laws and equal protections. But that is not the framework we are dealing with here and thus it remains my contention that the voters decision t affiliate themselves on the federal rolls should constitute an act of free speech and assembly, a state sanctioned statement of ones views and thus should be protected as such.

The parties should compete for and earn membership and only if it fails to do so should it cease to exist on the rolls. The Liberals have had a consistent presence on the rolls since 2012. No one took away Smoltchanov's right to be a liberal.  The PLP (renamed from the Populares) had a consistent presence on the rolls from 2010 until 2017 and no one ever denied Angus' right to be a PLPer.  The ones favoring a party change should be the ones burdened by actively changing their registration, not the ones who want to maintain their present alignment.

[Sestak]

But let's look at what's arguably the "tamest" point here, name changes.

Let's say that Alliance decides to rename itself "Moderate Party". I'd assume the following:

1. People whose registrations are changed to "Moderate" are in fact staying in the same party, while those who keep the "Alliance" registration are effectively creating a new splinter party.
2. People who vote against the name change aren't saying they'd want to remain registered as the old name even if the party changes its name, rather, they want to remain within their party but believe it should keep the same name.
3. People registered in a party, in general, would prefer to stay in the same party even if it changes names rather than keeping their registration while leaving the party.
4. People who care enough to leave a party if it changes its name will do so anyway - it's not that much of a burden considering that if you care that much you're probably paying attention to the game. Again, most people who vote against a name change would still want to stay with the party even if it changes its name.