| At Vote: Political Parties Act |
I think linking it to the number of people in the number is the Cabinet is reasonable. The goal here is to not have everyone have requesting forums for things that are never used. We can have a public forum for people looking to set up parties, but one person doesn't need a full set up. See our courts currently.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
If we really want to limit members let's just make it two, since I'd assume most of us can at least agree one person is not a party.
Or if the concern is inactivity why not just a posting requirement? (Though it needs a secure way to track posting activity.)
While I appreciate the openess, we're being somewhat ridiculous and this point.
The point of my legislation is to give us a process for determining who should be a political party and how/when they get forums. In doing so, we'll drop fly-by-night parties, limit the strain on admins and limit clutter on the boards. We can leave an open area for political organizations to form, but this proposal is intended to stop everyone other person in TSP from having their our forums which, coincidentally, is what having parties of two would allow. Again, I get wanting to be open and inclusive. But, I'm simply trying to be practical here.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(10-22-2016, 08:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: This makes it clearer and I'm generally supportive, but I would really prefer we have a minimual number of people because, as written now, we could have a one-person party. It does! (10-22-2016, 07:26 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: [color=#333333](1) A political party is any group of people in The South Pacific, counting at least as many members as senior Cabinet officials, who organize together in an official association for political or electoral purposes. 
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(10-23-2016, 09:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:(10-22-2016, 08:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: This makes it clearer and I'm generally supportive, but I would really prefer we have a minimual number of people because, as written now, we could have a one-person party. Was that edited because I could have swore the first point was written differently before ... Is someone gaslighting me or am I really going crazy? I'm good with this then ...
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(10-23-2016, 09:22 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:Nope, that was there in the original (in fact Glen used my wording for that specific section)(10-23-2016, 09:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:(10-22-2016, 08:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: This makes it clearer and I'm generally supportive, but I would really prefer we have a minimual number of people because, as written now, we could have a one-person party. I'll motion tomorrow if nobody else has issues. Gesendet von meinem Xtouch mit Tapatalk
(10-23-2016, 09:30 AM)Roavin Wrote:(10-23-2016, 09:22 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:Nope, that was there in the original (in fact Glen used my wording for that specific section)(10-23-2016, 09:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:(10-22-2016, 08:32 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: This makes it clearer and I'm generally supportive, but I would really prefer we have a minimual number of people because, as written now, we could have a one-person party. Huh ... Then my b. I'll second.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but do members of the Assembly HAVE to be part of a party?
(10-23-2016, 09:36 PM)Sam111 Wrote:(10-23-2016, 09:31 PM)Muncipio de Neiva Wrote: I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but do members of the Assembly HAVE to be part of a party? Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to clear that up cause I was unsure about that, but I don't really have an issue with being in a party if i had to be. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |