| At Vote: Political Parties Act |
(10-20-2016, 03:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: 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. The Island League creating its own forum to discuss its own issues and interests is absolutely not equivalent to a literal coup. That's outrageous. You want to ban TIL's forums for no reason other than you don't like the players in the party. Where we talk is none of your business, and I'll be damned before TSP slips down the slope into dictating where people are and aren't allowed to talk.
(10-20-2016, 02:55 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: 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. You can still talk, but my proposal is putting a structure in place in order to know what a a party qualifies for a forum. The only other alternative would be for the administration to assess when there's a critical mass and a forum is required. I'm sure we can all see where that goes. Returning to the idea of an election — we have four Cabinet positions, three local council positions, delegate and chair of the Assembly, so seven different positions (counting LC as one) and 17 different elections. I refuse to believe asking ONE member a political party to run in ONE election, is too much. I'm sorry — you can vote against this legislation is that's a problem but when we have at least four people, who are active enough to want to be a party, yet not one of them is willing to mount a campaign — we have issues. I'm going to ask that at the present we don't begin restricting what parties can and can't do. I'm more interested in deciding, which parties qualify for special recognition/forum access than restricting what and where people are doing things.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I'm actually okay with this as proposed. Just throwing that out there.
Edit: I've got more to say on this but I haven't thought through it all the way. We'll just say it's coming soon. 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
I think the issue is that way you're using language. Instead of the bill saying when parties qualify for forums and when those forums will be archived due to inactivity, it's talking about when parties count as parties and when they have to be dissolved. As in, TIL will literally be an illegal party if we don't field candidates for Cabinet, rather than simply saying we don't get our own subforum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (10-20-2016, 11:06 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I think the issue is that way you're using language. Instead of the bill saying when parties qualify for forums and when those forums will be archived due to inactivity, it's talking about when parties count as parties and when they have to be dissolved. As in, TIL will literally be an illegal party if we don't field candidates for Cabinet, rather than simply saying we don't get our own subforum. Yes but I think if you have the required 4 members who are politically active enough to be involved to form a party they will have someone run for at least 1 office over the course of 365 days. Especially if that also includes CoA, Del and LC. 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
The issue isn't requirements for a subforum. The issue is the idea that we should be dictating when parties are allowed to exist at all. The former is ok, the latter is just wrong and definitely against the Charter.
Tsu's posts sound a lot more like he wants legal requirements for getting a subforum. But the bill is written a lot more like heavy restrictions on political parties themselves. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm VC and former Chair of a party. They don't sound like heavy restrictions to me. And any serious group should be able to easily meet them.
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
Any attempt to regulate when or how a political is allowed to exist is unreasonable and certainly unconstitutional. I don't care if anybody wants to set requirements for when parties can have official subforums hosted here. But saying a party must meet X requirement or be dissolved is basically anti-democratic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(10-21-2016, 12:42 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Any attempt to regulate when or how a political is allowed to exist is unreasonable and certainly unconstitutional. I don't care if anybody wants to set requirements for when parties can have official subforums hosted here. But saying a party must meet X requirement or be dissolved is basically anti-democratic. So you would sooner it say "Party forums will be closed if ..."? Honestly, I think you're both misreading the intention and harping on a very minor point of this legislation. Again, I'm providing means to know when the party has stopped being active and provide a mechanisms in case factions are fighting over the forums. Nothing is intended to be outlawed.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
It seems like his main point is that a law shouldn't be allowed to dictate whether a political party is disbanded. Which is 100% correct in any modern democracy. Low activity means the party is inactive. It's not the government's place to say that the party is dissolved because of that inactivity though.
A political party can be inactive but still exist: indeed though, its subforum shouldn't necessarily be kept live in that event. The party can exist without a subforum. Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying that you want to know what we should do about inactive political party subforums. Subforums should be archived if a quantifiable activity quota isn't meant. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |