(10-14-2018, 05:22 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(10-14-2018, 03:30 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I don’t think outlawing private campaigning would even be legal without a Charter amendment [emoji14] My point was I would prefer it to not happen at all, than for it to be allowable for some and a liability for others. I don’t think people (in general) apply acceptability standards equally.

Not to knock Tsu here, but at the end of the day private campaigning is just people organizing into a bloc to elect someone. When two political parties tried to join together and do that, he and plenty others in TSP didn't like it and said it was corrupt. The APC was getting a lot of new people into politics, and TIL wanted to join forces to get our preferred candidate in the seat through APC's get-out-the-vote abilities. That wasn't acceptable, in large part because I was the one who organized it. But when it's a relative nobody in TSP, who doesn't have the constant aura of corruption around him, it's a case of "well, everybody else can do it too, they just don't."

Elections seem to always have different standards based on who is running, who is campaigning, and who is organizing voting blocs. I don't think regulating private campaigning is going to stop people from reacting negatively when it's somebody unpopular doing it. Or from people wondering if maybe there's something more nefarious going on with all the newbies showing up and listing the same single person on their ballots. So I question whether or not an idea like this would actually make much a difference. If not, then maybe it's not private campaigning we're actually upset about, but rather it's the outcome that private campaigning can lead to. *shrugs* Food for thought.

I want to reiterate a disclaimer here. I do not know what was brought out via Discord since I'm rarely on the platform. So, there's a chance someone might need to set me straight.

Glen, I have to disagree with you here. At least the way I see it, I don't think DMing people is the same as creating a joint political party that has enough power to swing the voting outcomes. If, for no the reason, it's easy enough to ignore a DM, whereby if you're a stated part of an organization or group, it's a different situation. 

To put in a RL context, (as I see it) DMing someone it knocking on someone's door and asking for them to vote for you. Whereas the other situation would be if the entire Democratic committee and Republican committee of a small town decided to vote for the same person — prior to campaigns — and all of those committee members were more than 50% of the vote. 

I feel like historically, when this has gotten brought up, it was largely due to the fact that people didn't like being DM'd and/or that people felt pressured by DMs. (Admittedly, I'm pretty sure I've argued against DM campaigning in the past.)

All that said, I agree with your other points: This is somewhat unenforcible, will likely be enforced unevenly, and the Assembly is responding to the potential outcome of the previous election, nothing more.    

I would argue, however, that the alternative is worse. DM campaigning may be difficult to enforce in an impartial manner, but a lack of regulation would only amplify this issue. By instituting regulations, we assign significant responsibility to the judiciary, which can be relied upon to act in an impartial and just manner; the alternative, meanwhile, is to effectively assign such a responsibility to the members of the community. Legislators, of course, do not and would not determine the legality of such forms of campaigning, but their response to it would provide a powerful bias on the basis of popularity. Perhaps I lack the experience and am ignorant of empirical evidence stating otherwise, but it seems to me as if regulating DM campaigning will mitigate these effects by creating a consistent standard for every candidate. It will not be a perfect system, of course, but it would be an improvement.

I'll admit that this is probably a response to the previous election. I don't think that changes whether we should take action. Even if our actions are responsive rather than proactive, that is not a reason to improve the laws of this region.  The potential outcome of the previous election has shown disagreements regarding whether DM campaigning should play a role, and, if so, how much of a role it should play, in TSP. Even if this is a response to the election, we should still address this issue.