Registration of Political Parties Act (Debate Open)

[Colin]

Registration of Political Parties Act

Section I: Registration
   1.   All individuals or groups wishing to form or maintain an Atlasian political party must submit an application to Secretary of Forum Affairs (SoFA) for certification as a political party.
   2.   No SoFA shall deny any request to form an Atlasian political party unless that party is in violation of any of the below listed terms:
      a.   No party shall be registered that consists of no members who have voted in an election within the past six months,
      b.   No party shall be registered for which the name of the registered party intentionally resembles that of another, already registered political party,
      c.   No party shall be registered that cannot provide an official contact for said party. This contact may be changed at any time.

Section II: Elections
For all elections within Atlasia, no candidate may run under a banner of any political party without an express statement from the official contact of that political party permitting that candidate to run under the banner of that party. No candidate so barred from running under any given banner shall be considered barred from running under a different registered political party, or as an independent.

Section III: Recognition of Existing Parties
All parties with a current membership of five or more, as recognized by the Constitution of Atlasia, shall be automatically recognized as Atlasian political parties effective 1 September 2008. All other existing political parties shall be without recognition effective 1 September 2008, save for those which submit an application to the Secretary of Forum Affairs as described in Section I, Clause 1.


Sponsor: Verily

[DownWithTheLeft]

Would Clause B be in effect for political parties that already exist?

Meaning would the Regional Protection Party (RPP) have to disband for having an acronym similar to the all but defunct but still technically existent Ron Paul Party (RPP)?

[The Mikado]

Would Clause B be in effect for political parties that already exist?

Meaning would the Regional Protection Party (RPP) have to disband for having an acronym similar to the all but defunct but still technically existent Ron Paul Party (RPP)?

Considering there's also already been a SDP, that could be a really interesting issue.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Would any senator be willing to introduce an amendment to have Clause B clarified in some way as to not effect existing parties?

[Associate Justice PiT]

      b.   No party shall be registered for which the name of the registered party intentionally resembles that of another, already registered political party,

     The bolded part means that the SDP has nothing to worry about & the RPP could convince the one remaining member of the Ron Paul Party to either join or just not register the name.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Don't we still have a minimum membership requirement for the SoFA to recognize a political party?  Like somewhere around three or four members?

[Colin]

Don't we still have a minimum membership requirement for the SoFA to recognize a political party?  Like somewhere around three or four members?

It's set in the Constitution as 5 members.

[minionofmidas]

Don't we still have a minimum membership requirement for the SoFA to recognize a political party?  Like somewhere around three or four members?

It's set in the Constitution as 5 members.

That's for providing any benefits from being a party to parties.
Not sure this thing here is supposed to accomplish anything; not sure it's constitutional. Need...to...do...research.

[minionofmidas]

Bump. Research results and (probably) amendment tomorrow.

[minionofmidas]

This is Article V, Section 1, Clause 8 of our worthy Constitution:

"Any political party of five or more members is considered to be an organized political party. The benefits of being an organized political party may be determined by the Senate by appropriate legislation."

Section 1 is clearly unconstitutional insofar as it applies to parties of five members or above*. Section 2 is similar to earlier proposals not to list minor parties on the ballot, ie to list one-man-parties as Independents - an issue I couldn't care less about either way, and that doesn't even require a law - it can be addressed by SoFAs by amending the Candidate Regulations (unless I overlooked something). It goes further by making it impossible to join a party before the elections just in order to mislead uninformed voters (although I wonder if any of our voters can be misled by that. For order of lower pref.s maybe.) or just to rile that party's members.
I don't see the need in that, but I don't see the harm either. I see the constitutional isse with the official contact in case of recognized parties that don't have one (but have over 5 members, whether grandfathered ones under Section 3 or new ones because Section 1 is unconstitutional), though. And I see the critical issue of the *timing* of contacts' declarations. Absentee Voting Booths open right upon the Candidate Declaration Deadline, and parties typically hold primaries (if they bother with them) after the Candidate Declaration Deadline. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom whatever has recently ruled that ... strike that. I haven't the slightest clue what they ruled exactly. I don't think they do, either. ... anyhow, they found that absentee voters have a right to broadly - but not exactly - the same information as regular voters. (Rant suppressed. I'd really like to see Sam's promised concurrence one day, though)
Not that this bill even states that the declarations have to be made before the regular vote opens.

So, bottom line: Badly drafted bill. No idea how to rectify, exactly. No pressing need, either. Kill.

I motion to table this legislation.

*weird aside: it is worth noting that membership in a political party is not defined in the Constitution or afaik anywhere in law, though - what the SoFA keeps a count of is technically a person's "political affiliation": Article V, Section II, Clause 1 and, with the same wording, the VIth Amendment, state "In registration, the person must state their name** and State of fantasy residence; In addition, they may optionally state a political affiliation". However, the two concepts have been commonly held to be identical.
**I've always marvelled at the idiotic *requirement* to restate your name, btw. Thankfully, precedent has largely been to ignore it.

[Brandon H]

Unless it has been done recently and I missed it, before any type of reform involving parties takes place, a Constitutional Amendment to remove the previously mentioned clause must be passed.

[minionofmidas]

Unless it has been done recently and I missed it, before any type of reform involving parties takes place, a Constitutional Amendment to remove the previously mentioned clause must be passed.

Nyes. There is some limited scope of reform as it stands... but the kind of reform most people who want reform have in mind seems not to be of that type.

[Verily]

Would any senator be willing to introduce an amendment to have Clause B clarified in some way as to not effect existing parties?

As long as the previous parties would not be registered under the act, they don't exist for the purposes of the act. So the old RPP and the SDP are irrelevant.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Would any senator be willing to introduce an amendment to have Clause B clarified in some way as to not effect existing parties?

As long as the previous parties would not be registered under the act, they don't exist for the purposes of the act. So the old RPP and the SDP are irrelevant.

For the sake of argument, what would happen if the old Ron Paul Party regsitered and the Regional Protection Party registered?

[Torie]

Why is this Bill needed?  What problems have we been having, that this Bill addresses?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why is this Bill needed?  What problems have we been having, that this Bill addresses?

I guess not even partisanship, but the parties are really showing their loyalities and strengths this election.

[Brandon H]

Technically, the Ron Paul Party changed its name to the Life & Liberty Party and has since disbanded. However, I'm not sure how this plays out if someone is still registered as one of these parties.

[minionofmidas]

I motion to table this legislation.

Where is my vote?

[Colin]

I motion to table this legislation.

Where is my vote?

Sorry, I didn't see it there. I had a long backlog of stuff that needed to get done.

The vote is on the motion to table.

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[minionofmidas]

I motion to table this legislation.

Where is my vote?

Sorry, I didn't see it there. I had a long backlog of stuff that needed to get done.

Not a problem.

Only reason I didn't complain earlier is I wasn't sure if tabling motions need seconding. I only got around to looking it up when you started Torie's vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Torie]

Aye

[DownWithTheLeft]

Technically, the Ron Paul Party changed its name to the Life & Liberty Party and has since disbanded. However, I'm not sure how this plays out if someone is still registered as one of these parties.

Someone pointed out that the party would have to re-register under the bill

[CultureKing]

aye

[Colin]

Nay


The required two days have passed. With 3 in favour with 1 against, this bill is tabled.