We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

At Vote: Political Parties Act
#1

So, as political parties don't seem to be going a way, I wanted to propose a way to codify them. More or less, I think this will give us a basis to start and a bit of a structure to ensure that the admins aren't creating dozens of forums than never get used.

As such, I'm proposing the following:

Quote:
Political Parties Act

An act outlining political parties and their benefits.

1. Defining Political Parties

(1) Any group of people may form a political party in the region, subject to the constraints described herein.
(2) All political parties must have enough legislative members to nominate a full slate during Cabinet elections.

2. Acceptance of Political Parties

(1) To be recognized as a political party, one member of the purposed party must provide a list of legislators to the Chair of the Assembly.
(2) The Chair of the Assembly will be tasked with:
         a. Verifying the validity of party members.
         b. Approving the political party.
         c. Keeping a list of political parties and their members.
         d. Dissolving political parties when determined by law.

3. Rights of Political Parties

(1) Once approved, political parties will be afforded a public and private forum area that may be customized in conjunction with the forum administrators.
(2) Parties may discuss potential legislation and lobby on behalf or against legislation.
(3) Parties may nominate candidates for political office and lobby on behalf or against candidates.

4. Dissolution of Political Parties

(1) Political parties will be dissolved if
         a. The requirements as described herein are not met,
         b. No member runs for a political office in an entire calendar year, or
         c. Members vote to dissolve said party, in a vote held in conjunction with the Chair of the Assembly.

Thoughts?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#2

A few comments:
  • I'd change 4.1.c from a vote of party members to the party demonstrating to the CoA that the party has an intent to dissolve in accordance with its internal processes.
  • If the CoA is a member of the party when 4.1 or 2.2 apply, somebody else (who?) needs to take over that duty.
  • Parties should have the obligation to report changes in membership to the CoA
  • Parties not fulfilling their obligations should be allowed to be sanctioned in some manner.
  • Would it be reasonable to say a legislator may only be in one party simultaneously?
  • The TIL charter includes a separate provision wherein party members that are in the cabinet or other positions requiring confidentiality may not directly or even indirectly expose sensitive information to the rest of the party members. Members must take care to avoid indirectly revealing private information, for example by opening discussion on a "broad" topic that allows non-elected members to infer what the Cabinet is discussing. This is something that should be addressed here as well.

More later. Tounge
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]
#3

(10-19-2016, 08:27 PM)Roavin Wrote: A few comments:
  • I'd change 4.1.c from a vote of party members to the party demonstrating to the CoA that the party has an intent to dissolve in accordance with its internal processes.
  • If the CoA is a member of the party when 4.1 or 2.2 apply, somebody else (who?) needs to take over that duty.
  • Parties should have the obligation to report changes in membership to the CoA
  • Parties not fulfilling their obligations should be allowed to be sanctioned in some manner.
  • Would it be reasonable to say a legislator may only be in one party simultaneously?
  • The TIL charter includes a separate provision wherein party members that are in the cabinet or other positions requiring confidentiality may not directly or even indirectly expose sensitive information to the rest of the party members. Members must take care to avoid indirectly revealing private information, for example by opening discussion on a "broad" topic that allows non-elected members to infer what the Cabinet is discussing. This is something that should be addressed here as well.

More later. Tounge

In short, the goal was my legislation was made in an attempt to be flexible as to how political parties wish to set themselves up, but also to still provide enough of a structure so it's not anything goes.

I'm happy to read particularities into the law, but lets remember that every party will have differences.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#4

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.
#5

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.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)


#6

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.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
#7

(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.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#8

(10-20-2016, 01:56 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(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.

I understand the idea, but if we're going to be organising parties on a formal basis I'd like to see them regulated, with prohibition of certain activities. I strongly disapprove of people setting up their own private "TSP" forums like TIL has, and I would like to see a ban on that as part of any legislation on political parties.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
#9

Tsu, it's not always going to be the case that members of any particular party want to run for election. We have very uncompetitive elections with huge bias for incumbents. That already dampens participation. Combine that with the fact that most parties are only a handful of people, and it's likely you'd see an otherwise active party not field candidates at all. Some parties may not want to get involved in elections, and want to focus on the Assembly instead. That's how TIL initially formed.

I can see regulating when a party qualifies for its own subforum. But I think any laws about when or how a party is allowed to exist, including telling people where they are and aren't allowed to talk, is a violation of the freedom of assembly.

In fact, Bel's proposal for a ban on third party forums is not only contravening freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, it's a very obvious and transparent attack on The Island League. It's absurd and unenforceable, even if it wasn't totally unconstitutional.
#10

I'm not sure how prohibiting people from creating their own, alternative "TSP" forums is a contravention of either free assembly or free speech. I'm also surprised at your change of mind, considering how you responded to other people creating their own forum for TSP in the past.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .