Now you attack the one way I see people have to protect themselves from the bullies with their little circle of friends, who like any entourage, supports the negative and destructive behavior. 

Aiight — I'm sorry, but this is a step too far.

I'm willing to discuss parties — as DM has pointed out — but if we're falling back on the "this protects us from bullies" we're doing something wrong. If that's the only thing that stands in the way of "bullies" then our level of discourse is already problematic and parties aren't going to fix that.

I also feel that DM — and he can correct me if I'm wrong — didn't *want* to start a party, but now that this is the structure of the region, people feel the need to divvy themselves up. As I have historically not been keen on, but can see where the region is going.

Toward what Glen was saying — I'm not sure a quid pro quo corruption didn't happen here because despite all of the protests otherwise, the end result of the actions would've been pretty clear.

If we were inclined to prevent this from happening, what if we put a sunset provision on a law in that once we have multiple viable parties, the law would be instantly nulled?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Well neither of you have addressed the questions and\or maybe aren't able to or willing to because oh no we can't address truths but speak in platitudes.

I'm assuming we are going to pretend to ignore them. If we can't talk about the actual reality of TSP and what has happened then we are going to ignore the fact that parties evolved out of the state of very real events. I mean one parties platform at least grew out of actual events in the region.

Again,
1. What are you proposing in terms of parties? Some measure of control or?
2. How does curtailing parties in any way protect democracy?
3. How does curtailing parties stop the old-fashioned politicking that has been going on for quite a while?
4. How do you ensure fairness for all people, especially the majority?

I'm not a member of a party, at least not as of yet. However, within this discussion and the other two threads that revolve around or somehow turned into a discussion of parties I see critiques:
1. How can a party member be neutral (regarding Farengeto's appointment by DM)?
Which really doesn't make sense based on the fact that our previous appointee Raven was not only not neutral (and prone to high emotions) but had very clear sides\friends\imperalist goals.

2. Parties choosing candidates is a BIG PROBLEM bc we're a meritocracy aren't we?
Nope, honey, we're not. See: Wolf, et al.

So, again what are parties doing (other than the transparency - which some of this discussion seems to be a "Hide away what your doing to make it less obvious like the rest of people do") that is abnormal? Or what is being proposed regarding them?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

(This post was last modified: 02-09-2017, 11:36 PM by Escade.)

Reply

Well neither of you have addressed the questions and\or maybe aren't able to or willing to because oh no we can't address truths but speak in platitudes.

Watch it! Tsu and DM are addressing the truth just not what you want them to address. Give it time.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

1. What are you proposing in terms of parties? Some measure of control or?
2. How does curtailing parties in any way protect democracy?
3. How does curtailing parties stop the old-fashioned politicking that has been going on for quite a while?
4. How do you ensure fairness for all people, especially the majority?

I'm not a member of a party, at least not as of yet.  However, within this discussion and the other two threads that revolve around or somehow turned into a discussion of parties I see critiques:
1. How can a party member be neutral (regarding Farengeto's appointment by DM)?
Which really doesn't make sense based on the fact that our previous appointee Raven was not only not neutral (and prone to high emotions) but had very clear sides\friends\imperalist goals.

2. Parties choosing candidates is a BIG PROBLEM bc we're a meritocracy aren't we? 
Nope, honey, we're not. See: Wolf, et al.

1. I'm not proposing anything except — maybe — asking them not to collude on endorsement trading until we have a situation where that doesn't make it prohibitive for anyone else to win.

2. It protects democracy because if we assume parties fall in line with the party endorsement (through will or force) It currently removed anyone not from one of these two parties a seat at the table. OR — even members of another party.

3. I've personally always found the process of "endorsing" people grotesque. It's also one of the reasons I primarily vote in private because I don't think we should we pushing each other to vote in any number of ways. I do appreciate the ongoing argument that think has been happening forever — just not to/with me. I alternative form of that argument is that it just wasn't happening in this way, but its convenient to mischaracterize it for at the current discussion. 

4. You're going to have to describe "fairness." Because I'd argue giving everyone equal chance to be elected is, in fact, more fair and dolling out endorsements ahead of time.

To your other issues:

1. We (you and I) tried to have a discussion on neutrality, but were shut down. So, I don't know. But, I think this constant return to Raven is silly. Whether or not her have imperialist friends outside of the region, he didn't have a stated alliance to a significant portion of current voters. Attempts to conflate the two are misguided.

2. Again, the Wolf situation is radically different here. And, even if that wasn't meritocracy, are you suggesting we just throw up our hands and say "eff it!" It's always been that way so I'm going to rig the system in my favor?

Now, did that answer your questions?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Thanks, Tsu!

No I agree with what you are saying about not making it prohibitive for anyone to run. Also the APC\TIL agreement seemed to have fallen apart pretty quickly. It's hard to get people to agree. If this is the first election with parties, we may see what their effect is and be able to think about impacts by discussing pros and cons for individuals who join or choose not to join?

However, I'm trying to think of laws that aren't already on the legal code that would need to be made to "curtail" parties.

For example, parties already seem to state that while members are encouraged to vote as a bloc they are not required to. Then, it seems like if members were not treated well they would probably leave? That would be a "naturally people would not joing a party that threatens them or is unfun or somehow prohibitive." Or do we want a law stating that parties may not require members to vote as a block? But then do parties have the right to reject a member or someone who seems like a spy or a troll?

I don't feel comfortable joining a party without further investigation and discussion with members about goals and def. not while running a campaign but I'd like to try one out and see how it fits? Maybe try out more than one?

Like here are possible ways to curtail parties:
1. Limit membership for each party (can be worked around and also seems undemocratic)
2. Make a law that prohibits individuals and political party members from exchanging endorsements before campaigns have been officially published (how easy or hard would this be to enforce? can it be enforced?)

3. Add something to the Legislator application wherein people's oath states clearly they they will vote with honesty and integrity in the elections? (more doable but I assume we would need precise wording)
Put in a reminder during elections and when people enter the voting booth that they took a solemn oath to uphold our cultural values? (DM, this might also tie into your point which I forget if its in thread or elsewhere)

Oh and about the Wolf situation, I understand your point and thanks for discussing this issue with me on Discord and here and for filling in some of the gaps for me. That is why you are the best and help me see things from a truly neutral and compassionate perspective <3

My point was related to the fact that a majority of people who voted for him were not TSPers and had obtained citizenship solely to vote for him. This was revealed to me by some of them on IRC. Those people and Wolf, it seems, dissapeared. That is foreign interference and the kind of thing we can actively legislate to prevent. Several people, including B&N and others had some ideas on this and I will dig through for their solution.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply

I would argue that all proposed legislative acts so far would be clear violations of the right to assemble and the freedom of speech in our Charter. I just don't see how it doesn't violate those if you're telling parties they aren't allowed to endorse or enter into electoral alliances. It's also something that these proposals aren't concerned with non-party groups of friends coordinating their votes.

I think the obvious reaction to these kinds of laws would be that parties simply stop making this stuff public. Not that anybody would actually stop strategizing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 02-12-2017, 03:41 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I disagree with the last part Glen. I know a lot of fine people within the APC who would stop doing things if they were illegal. What you are suggesting is that people would just ignore the law, a suggestion I am not really comfortable with.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 02-13-2017, 12:04 AM by Omega.)

Reply

I would argue that all proposed legislative acts so far would be clear violations of the right to assemble and the freedom of speech in our Charter. I just don't see how it doesn't violate those if you're telling parties they aren't allowed to endorse or enter into electoral alliances. It's also something that these proposals aren't concerned with non-party groups of friends coordinating their votes.

I think the obvious reaction to these kinds of laws would be that parties simply stop making this stuff public. Not that anybody would actually stop strategizing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's remember — one half of this endorsement swap wasn't going to make it public, already.

And, again, freedom or speech, or freedom to assembly is not — nor should it — be a right to stack elections.

Edit: The alternative might be for the government to get involved in the intricacies of party management to make sure parties aren't *requiring* voters to vote inline with the endorsement.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 02-12-2017, 11:59 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

Edit: The alternative might be for the government to get involved in the intricacies of party management to make sure parties aren't *requiring* voters to vote inline with the endorsement.

What exactly would that look like Tsu?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

That's fucking ridiculous, and you know it Tsu.

En Marche towards dictatorship, apparently.

I'm done with your attacks on parties. Go join the NPO if you want to control everybody's opinions and actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 02-13-2017, 06:55 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply