| Political Parties: A Discussion |
(02-12-2017, 11:57 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:I'm honestly not sure what you suggest here short of outright anti-democratic laws. Preventing voters for voting for their chosen candidate? Contesting election results because of who voted for them? Monitoring legislator's private communications based on affiliations? I'm not trying to be overdramatic here, but I'm not sure what you suggest that doesn't blatantly discriminate against certain voter groups.(02-12-2017, 03:40 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: 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. As well, parties already can't force anyone to vote for somebody. The only consequences for it are the social ones outlined by the party.
You can't have a healthy democracy without free speech and association, which is why those are generally the first freedoms curbed by authoritarian regimes looking to ensure their longevity. This is not to say that Tsunamy is trying to create an authoritarian regime here, but rather to say that nothing good and healthy will happen to the South Pacific's democracy if freedoms vital to sustaining democracy are curtailed here.
Ultimately, it appears to be a small minority of people who even believe anything improper is going on with political parties. They see "vote stacking" -- which, in times past, meant coordinating to decide an election with people from outside a region, not simply coordinating with your regionmates regarding elections -- where most others just see democracy working the way it normally does. Nothing that is happening here hasn't always happened, it's just that when it happened in the past it happened in relative secret, it usually involved bringing in people from outside the region to become citizens and vote, and the people who did it usually denied it. Transparency and the fact that parties are relying exclusively on people actually in the South Pacific rather than foreign interlopers are positive developments that should be encouraged.
(02-13-2017, 06:54 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: That's fucking ridiculous, and you know it Tsu. Of course, it's ridiculous. That's why I threw it in there to draw attention. (02-13-2017, 09:32 AM)Farengeto Wrote: I'm honestly not sure what you suggest here short of outright anti-democratic laws. Preventing voters for voting for their chosen candidate? Contesting election results because of who voted for them? Monitoring legislator's private communications based on affiliations? I'm not trying to be overdramatic here, but I'm not sure what you suggest that doesn't blatantly discriminate against certain voter groups. So, we can exert social pressure on people to vote the way the party apparatus wants, but that's not corruption? I don't understand. I'm being called anti-democratic, yet I'm the one arguing that we DON'T vote stack through our party system. The defenders of this whole situation are hiding behind the fact that they can freely associate — yet "freely associate" means making backroom deals that effect the entire region. That's decidedly, undemocratic. To Glen's assertion: I'm not attacking political parties, I'm attacking the way that they act. There is, at the end of the day, a difference. I'm not trying to prohibit how anyone associates, but again, I'm asking for a some good faith toward the democratic standards we have in the region. I honestly can't believe that saying "Please don't privately swap endorsements until such time that you don't control a totality the party apparatuses" is considered "undemocratic" and a march toward authoritarianism. It's good to know where everyone stands on this, though.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Can we all agree agree to this:
- Political parties are not inherently bad and maybe even positive. - Political parties deciding on endorsements beforehand are bad. - Legislation against agreements beforehand is unenforceable and illegal according to our bill of rights - Voters can publish parties that do these bad things by voting against them, and will know about it when it happens because (1) The APC makes its endorsement process public (2) TIL members do not fear speaking up about it, see this most recent issue. - We're still a democracy. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(02-13-2017, 09:41 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: So, we can exert social pressure on people to vote the way the party apparatus wants, but that's not corruption? Excluding people who join a party because they think it's fashionable, the assumption is people agree with their party's platform, which is why they joined in the first place. Does that mean they must vote their party all the time? No, everyone should retain the right to decide who gets their vote. But it's silly to act like it's an outrage for parties to expect their members to be in broad agreement. I know you aren't denouncing broad agreement, I'm well aware of that, but that's where the implication lies: the right of parties to expect things from their members. (02-13-2017, 09:41 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: I don't understand. I'm being called anti-democratic, yet I'm the one arguing that we DON'T vote stack through our party system. The defenders of this whole situation are hiding behind the fact that they can freely associate — yet "freely associate" means making backroom deals that effect the entire region. That's decidedly, undemocratic. Political parties, almost by definition, involve backroom deals and endorsements. That's not anti-democratic, that's just the nature of having a party system. This particular endorsement swap, ahead of time, was definitely inappropriate. But that doesn't make the practice of endorsements and party-line voting anti-democratic. That is just the nature of the beast. I get the impression that you're expecting parties to act more like think tanks: associations of like minded people, maybe even some who disagree, who propose certain policy positions, but don't necessarily act to bring them upon. Again, I know that's simplifying your position, but yet again, that's how it comes across. In the end, if you have parties, they are going to behave like parties. You can't fault them for behaving like what they are. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Only thing that would ever keep me from joining anything defined as a party in TSP is precedence set with things like Empire. My fear would be someone or a small group would do something like the last coup and the GROUP would get isolated/banned from the region, like Empire, regardless of an individual's participation. TSP has also suffered severely at time with an us/them mentality (been guilty of it myself) and parties could become a Scarlet Letter thing.
It's not very helpful to be purposefully provocative. I'm not sure what it's supposed to "draw attention" to, aside from very anti-democratic ideas flowing about in certain quarters. Let's not forget that it was seriously proposed that offsite party forums be banned and TSPers using them be banned as well. If you were trying to be provocative but not serious, Tsu, it really says something that people are taking you seriously. If you think advocates of parties are being unreasonable, consider that we think you're being dangerously retributive when you say "let's ban parties from endorsing or setting their own rules."
The reality is -- and you can deny it as much as you want; doesn't change a thing -- strategizing and coordinating to "stack" elections has been a common feature in almost every election we've had. You've done it, as well! Nobody in this thread can sit in their high horse, when it comes to "shady dealings" in TSP politics. @QuietDad: That's what I think is happening now. People are demonizing parties. It's quid-pro-quo corruption for parties to swap endorsements, but I don't see those people proposing snooping in PMs and banning coordination over Discord. Nobody here can say it's ok to coordinate over private conversations who's going to run for what, or when to accept nominations, or how to order ballots-- things that have happened in the past several years of elections-- but then start proposing overbearing paternalistic regulation of parties engaging in the behavior political parties should be engaging in. Elections in TSP has never been entirely meritocratic. The people now arguing they need to be are the same people who have engaged in far shadier dealings than APC and TIL agreeing to endorse already widely popular candidates. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (02-12-2017, 11:57 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: 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. Now we face a problem that is akin to problems in real world democracy, specifically the US. Members of parties are inclined to vote for their party candidate, or the candidate that their party endorses, as a display of loyalty and a "pledge of allegiance" to their party. I'm not sure how you'd prohibit party members all voting for one person, unless you force someone to change their vote or vote for someone that they don't want to, which absolutely destroys democracy. I believe there is some sort of alternative out here but we are maybe overlooking it. There are plenty of pros and cons to political parties, and frankly, not allowing them will only lead to circumvention because people will assemble regardless. Banning political parties does not create a betterment of democracy. Instead of resorting to establishing policy, rules, and law, we should encourage legislators and party members to develop their own opinions on candidates, and not adapting to those that are *forced* on them by their party. We should encourage them to lead based on their own opinions and not those of others. Frankly, that's about all we can do, unless you want to absolutely skew their political freedoms.
^^^^^^
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)
I think there's a genuine disconnect here between facts and rhetoric, in that TIL is defending certain kinds of behaviour on the grounds of "other people do it too" but at the same time not presenting any evidence to suggest that this is true. I can't speak for everyone here, but if you go back over the last year and look at my voting record you'll see me casting votes for TIL candidates all the time. If you look at Tsu's I imagine you'll see this as well, and the same will be true for DM, etc.
The case here isn't that those of us who are speaking out against political horsetrading and back-room deals have been engaged in the same kind of behaviour; to the contrary, the only people who have been doing so recently are the ones currently defending the practice. This is particularly telling when there seems to be a line of thinking that "this behaviour is bad but everyone is doing it". No. Everyone is not doing it. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |