(10-20-2016, 05:51 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I don't think the dissolution part should be in there at all, really. At the very least, parties shouldn't be required to run people in elections. That's not a real measure of activity, anyways, since 75% of the year there aren't any elections. TIL is more active on legislative matters than in elections.

I'm also not so sure how a few of these provisions would be allowed under the Charter's protection of the right to assembly. Particularly anything requiring approval or dissolution, or in other words anything that would control the existence of a party itself.

(10-20-2016, 07:04 AM)Ryccia Wrote: I'm alright with this proposal. However, parties should not be required to provide candidates to elections. If we force them to do so, some future movements will go out, dissolved, because they could not provide candidates.

I don't think asking ONE member of the party to run in ONE election a year is a poor gauge of minimal activity. If anything there should be much more.

The reference to the slate of Cabinet elections isn't intended that they must be put forward, but to require a minimum membership — i.e. 4.

(10-20-2016, 11:02 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm not sure of the point or necessity of legislating for political parties - they're very much something that people can already set up, and have done so - but if people want to go down this route I'd like to see regulation of their activities, in particular a prohibition on the establishment of private TSP forums.

The idea is to build out an area for political parties — a public and private area for parties as they see fit. However, I don't want admins to be building out forums and forums for parties that no one uses.

To Glen's other point — there's no reason why this should effect anything else, especially the Right to Assembly. You can assemble in a group — but you aren't entitled to the trappings of a political party (namely forums) without this.